Libby Guilty

Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. What was the underlying crime?



A former key White House official, Lewis Libby, has been found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6424319.stm

Libby Agrees with Marc Rich Pardon

House Hearing on Clinton's Pardons


Thursday, March 1, 2001



 WAXMAN: OK. The first--but the president gave other reasons. And the first reason the president gave was, and I quote, "I understood that the other oil companies that had structured transactions like those in which Mr. Rich and Mr. Green were indicted, were instead sued civilly by the government," end quote. Was the president right about this statement?

LIBBY: Yes, sir. There were other companies which had similar transactions. And to the best of my knowledge, those were generally handled civilly.

WAXMAN: The second reason the president gave, was--and then I quote again from him--"I was informed that in 1985, in a related case against a trading partner of Mr. Rich and Mr. Green, the Energy Department, which was responsible for enforcing the governing law, found that the manner in which the Rich-Green companies had accounted for these transactions was proper."

Was the president right about this statement?

LIBBY: Yes, sir, I believe he was. And that would be the Arco proposed remedial order, issued by the Department of Energy.

WAXMAN: The third reason the president gave was, quote, "two highly regarded tax experts, Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School, and Martin Ginsberg of Georgetown University Law Center, reviewed the transactions in question, and concluded that the companies were correct in their U.S. income tax treatment of all of the items in question, and that there was no unreported federal income, or additional tax liability attributable to any of the challenged transactions," end quote. Was the president correct about this?

LIBBY: Yes, sir.

WAXMAN: The fourth reason the president gave, was, quote, "in order to settle the government's 

case against them, the two men's companies had paid approximately $200 million in fines, penalties and taxes, most of which might not even have been warranted under the Wolfman-Ginsberg analysis that the companies had followed the law, and correctly reported their income," end quote. Was the president correct on this statement?

LIBBY: Yes sir.

WAXMAN: The fifth reason the president gave was, quote, "The Justice Department, in 1989, rejected the use of racketeering statutes in tax cases like this one," end quote. Was the president right about this?

LIBBY: That's my understanding of the Justice Department manual.

WAXMAN: Well, Mr. Libby, it appears that you agree with most of the points that the president made. Let me ask you the bottom-line question.

President Clinton apparently concluded that Mr. Rich had not committed the crimes he had been accused of. Do you agree with this? Do you think that Mr. Rich is a tax fraud and a criminal, or do you agree with President Clinton's assessments of the merits of the case?

LIBBY: I believe, sir, that based on all of the evidence available to defense counsel, the best interpretation of the evidence is that they did not any civil--any tax, even as a civil matter. That would be the interpretation given by the two tax professors.

WAXMAN: And therefore, that there should not have been a criminal liability.

LIBBY: Based on the evidence available to the defense, that would be correct, sir.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/pardonshearingtext030101.htm



For more on the Marc Rich pardon, see:



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/6/24738/59490/mbalibbytrial/Libby-the-Marc-Rich-Pardon-and-Congressional-Hearings

Which is Worse?

The wing nuts won't touch this one with a ten foot pole. *S*

They're stumped.

Which is worse -- felony obstruction of justice and perjury?

Or crossing the Rio Grande illegally?

And why?

Back to Top

DOJ Veteran Speaks Out

This appeared in the Denver Post on July 5, 2007.

"As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.

The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.

In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."

In his long-awaited but uninformative testimony concerning the extraordinary firings of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not allay these concerns. Indeed, he faced a no-win situation. If he testified falsely regarding his alleged lack of recollection and lack of involvement, he perjured himself and lied to both Congress and the American people. On the other hand, if he told the truth, he clearly has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job. Either way, his fitness to serve is now in doubt.

Tellingly, in his congressional testimony, D. Kyle Sampson (the junior aide to whom the attorney general delegated vast authority) expressed the view that the distinction between "performance" considerations and "political" considerations was "largely artificial." This attitude, however, is precisely the problem. The administration that Sampson served has elided the distinction between government performance and politics to an unparalleled extent (just as it has blurred the boundaries between the White House counsel's office and the attorney general's office). And it is no answer to say that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The point that is lost on those who make this argument is that U.S. attorneys must not serve partisan purposes or advance a partisan agenda - which has nothing to do with requiring them to promote an administration's legitimate policy priorities.

As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.

They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.

The sweeping, judicially unchecked powers granted under the Patriot Act should neither have been created in the first place nor permanently renewed thereafter, and the Act - which also contributed to the ongoing contretemps regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys, by changing the appointment process to invite political abuse - should be substantially modified, if not scrapped outright. And real, rather than symbolic, responsibility should be assigned for the manifold abuses. The public trust has been flagrantly violated, and meaningful accountability is long overdue. Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

The views presented in this essay are not representative of the Department of Justice or its employees but are instead the personal views of its author.

John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981. "

Back to Top

Leak Potentially Horrific

Bush officials admit the leak of Plame's identity could potentially reveal other agency secrets beyond her identity.

"The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA."

Back to Top

No Doubt: Plame Was Covert

This unclassifed document from the CIA lays to rest the matter of Plame's status as a covert operative.

"On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in Temporary Duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Back to Top

Cheney Directed Leaks of Classified Info

As reported by Murray Waas in the April 14, 2006 National Journal, Cheney instructed Libby to leak the classified information to the press. And by July 12, Libby was already in his THIRD conversation with Judith Miller regarding Plame's CIA employment.

"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, according to Libby's grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report."

All signs point to Cheney as being the master puppeteer in this sordid affair.

Back to Top

Bush Action Unusual

Bush deviated from his usual practice of submitting commutations for review by career lawyers at DOJ. From the Washington Post:

"For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said."

And then there is this from the Miami Herald:

"Bush ignored the usual process for commutations, which calls for the Justice Department to review the case after the felon reports to prison. The department's guidelines say that commuting a sentence is 'an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted.'"

Back to Top

Bush Opposed Intervening before he Favored It

Bush then:

"Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to 'replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.'"

Back to Top

Bush Says His Action "not appropriate"

Bush said that it would be inappropriate; and then did it anyway.

"I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted."

Back to Top

Libby on Rich's Pardon

Some of you may recall the rightwinger outrage at President Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich. Many of you probably aren't aware, though, of who worked hard to try to get Rich off the hook. And even fewer of you are probably aware that Congressman Waxman forced Scooter Libby to testify under oath that he agreed with Clinton's reasoning, and that Mark Rich should have never been prosecuted in the first place.

Back to Top

Post Gone Nuts

What in the world has happened to the Washington Post? I heard Josh Marshall the other day assert that the Post editorial page was arguably one of the worst in the nation. I have to agree with Josh on that. What in the world are the Post editors thinking when they allow columnist, Richard Cohen, to spread such lies as this?

"Libby was not convicted of the crime that the special prosecutor was appointed to find -- who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame -- but of lying to a grand jury. In fact, the compulsively compulsive Patrick Fitzgerald not only knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated."

To the contrary, Fitz said early on that because of the lying and obstruction, it would be impossible to know how many crimes were committed and by whom. In fact, in the end, Fitz DID land four felony convictions in the case. How can he have known there were no crimes committed, yet still obtain four felony convictions? What in the world is the Post thinking?

Back to Top

Clinton Acquitted

Interesting piece at Firedoglake about the failure to show that Clinton committed perjury.

Back to Top

Outing of Plame - Who's Going to Work for Us Now?

Think about it -- if you were an al qaeda insider, and you knew that Bush had outed Plame, would YOU agree to cooperate with the CIA now?

Back to Top

Waxman's on the Case

Check out this from Henry Waxman's House Oversight Committee.

"Committee Will Hold Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity

Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee will receive testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 16.

In addition, the Committee today sent a letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by Mr. Fitzgerald before the Committee.

The Oversight Committee will webcast the hearing live at www.oversight.house.gov."

The fun is just beginning, folks.

Back to Top

Libby & Al Capone

"Convicting him of perjury was like convicting Al Capone of tax evasion or Alger Hiss of perjury. It doesn't mean they were not guilty of other crimes." - Joe Wilson

Rule of Law

I found some powerful statements by indignant republicans about how werewolf-like it is to lie under oath.

''How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?'' - Chuck Hagel (R-NB)

"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth. No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country." - Tom DeLay

"What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. . . " Our failure to hold people accountable for "lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations." - James Sensenbrenner

"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit" those in positions of power. "He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail." - Bill Frist

---

Speaking about Scooter Libby?

Heavens no. That was when they wanted to nail Clinton on the same charges Libby was convicted on this week.

Back to Top

Libby - the "Fall Guy"

Here's one I don't understand, unless we attribute it to pure stupidity on the part of our Bush supporters and Libby defenders.

When rightwingers complain that Libby was made the ''fall guy,'' they seem not to understand that they're implicating the people ABOVE the Special Assistant to the President - that would be Cheney and Bush.

Back to Top

DOJ Authorized Fitz to Go after Perjurers

In a February, 2004 letter from the Acting Attorney General of the United States, to Patrick Fitzgerald, the AG specifically charged Fitzgerald with the authority to go after anyone who tried to interfere with his investigation of the alleged unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity.

"At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice...."

It's like Fitzgerald expected obstruction, destruction of evidence, and perjury, and asked permission in advance to expand his investigation if needed.

Back to Top

Post Spins for Libby

In its March 6, 2007, lead editorial, the Washington Post attempts to downplay the Libby conviction. You might recall that we predicted such spin by the media.

"The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert."

On the contrary, the Post earlier reported this:

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

In order to believe the editorial's suggestion that there was no orchestrated effort to punish Wilson, one has to disbelieve the Post's own reporting.

As for whether or not she was covert, according to Fitzgerald, Plame's identity had been protected by the CIA "not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."

In statements to the press following the verdict, Fitzgerald stated clearly and emphatically that Libby had divulged "classified information." The question of whether she was covert is moot. The CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department for a reason. The outing of Plame had done serious damage to the security of the nation and to the CIA intelligence apparatus.

Further, in a Justice Department letter to Fitzgerald the department clearly granted him "authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal crime laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses."

Any way you cut it. Libby committed a very serious offense in jeapordizing a CIA operative and those working with her. Fitzgerald was perfectly within reasonable prosecutorial boundries in going after the man who tried to obstruct his investigation into it.

Back to Top