Democrats Don't Want Libby to Be Pardoned

Democrats Don't Want Libby to Be Pardoned

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent2 hours, 20 minutes ago

The Senate's top Democrats challenged President Bush on Tuesday to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis Libby, a former top White House aide who faces trial on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA leak case.

"We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White House — including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President Cheney — has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby," added the letter, signed by Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other members of the leadership.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to rule out a pardon when asked about the issue by reporters before Democrats sent their letter. "I'm not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding. And I'm not going to speculate about any matters relating to it," he said.

At a news conference, Reid launched an extraordinary attack on Cheney, whom he said had been involved in the "manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq" as well as "leaking classified information to discredit White House critics."

He challenged the president in personal terms, urging him to "avoid falling in the footsteps of his father who pardoned six men, some were convicted, some were indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal."

Shortly before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other former government officials who had served in the Reagan administration. The five were involved in the Iran-Contra affair, in which arms were secretly sold to Iran to win the freedom of American hostages, then the money was funneled to anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua despite a congressional ban on military aid.

"Swift public action on your part will make clear that you take seriously perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government," the letter said.

On a day that top Republicans sought an investigation into the leak of the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, Reid swiftly turned the question to a related issue — Bush's denial that the United States tortures prisoners held in the war on terror.

"I know it was embarrassing for the president to be in South America and have to respond to questions about American torturing prisoners. And he denied it and I hope that it's accurate," he said.

Asked whether he believed Bush's denial, Reid sidestepped. "I would hope that we haven't been involved in torture," he said.

The letter to Bush marked the second time in as many weeks that the Democratic leadership has tried to raise the discomfort level for Republicans in the White House and Congress. Last Tuesday, Reid surprised Republicans by putting the Senate into a rare closed session to dramatize Democratic claims that the GOP has failed to investigate allegations that Bush used faulty intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

In addition to Reid, the letter was signed by Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Chuck Schumer of New York and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

 

all the bros can't wait till they get their cocks into libby's ass/mouth in prison.

 

Why aren't the Republican Senators jumping all over Reid? I can't believe what pussies they are. People contributed money and worked for these wimps, and they can't support their President and his closest aides against a common thug like Reid?

All Republicans have to do to stop this is point out that President Bubba sold pardons to traitors like Marc Rich. How dare Democrats criticize this President with that kind of record. He is perfectly entitled to pardon Libby, who got caught up in a highly politicized investigation, as a result of his service to the adminstration. Likewise , his father was eminently justified in pardoning those unfairly targeted on the eve of the presidential election by a highly partisan special counsel, Lawrence Walsh.

 

Senator Reid a common thug?

I see you have the crack pipe fired up and working overtime....

Again, the repubs did jump over Clinton for the pardons claiming that it was wrong on principle...so now they should not stay on that same principle?

Oh course not, in AAA's world, there is no principle but winning at any cost...

 

There seems to be immense disagreement amongst legal experts whether the outing of Plame was illegal. It seems her covert status had expired more than five years prior to Libby' remarks. Of course legal expert Z10 couldn't figure that out, as if the absence of more far reaching indictments wasn't evidence enough that this case had no far reaching implications. In the present context, although Libby's probably guilty of perjury/obstruction, it's a real non story.

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Further the prosecutor acknowledges that Libby learned Plame's identity from others.

FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

Why was no one else indicted for discussing Plame. Because it wasn't a crime!

 

Or because Libby's and Rove's lies and obstruction of the national security investigation prevented Fitzgerald from collecting sufficient evidence. Al Capone was not charged with murders either, that does not mean he did not murder anybody.

 

Oh come on get off it, Plame was a WMD expert who worked Deep Undercover (no diplomatic protection) in many countries. She probably made many connections with people who helped her (and this country) learn about WMD programs in those countries. After she was outed all those people who she came into contact with, may have been thrown in jail or killed. Furthermore, now all of those countries (presumably hostile) now know more about how our intel operations work on the WMD front. Furthermore, Novak disclosed the CIA front company Plame 'worked' for, other agents may have also used it and they covers may have been blown as well. No one knows the extent of the damage because the CIA won't comment on it for obvious reasons. Only political hacks can deny that nothing was wrong/illegal in any of this.

 

Huh?

Sufficient evidence for what? He has evidence other's knew. Instead of being a lazy fuck just go and read the proffer will you. I'm sick of debating points that are in the public record.

 

Here's something shocking. NEWS BRIEF!!!!

Wrong is not tantamount to illegal.

No such thing as being charged with breaking a right.

Until 1982 there was NO law concerning this. As it turns out, like all laws, like anything that deals with SPECIFICS, there's loopholes. She hadn't been "covert" in possibly nine years. After five, no law broken.

 

Let me make it simple for you, Libby had a choice to cooperate, tell the truth and be charged with outing Plame or lie to the GJ and be charged with obstruction and perjury. He chose the latter.

Mr. Fitzgerald said.... In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,” he added.
...
A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson’s employment by the CIA was classified information.
The over-arching obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.