Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid need to put impeachment back on the table now. In fact, forget the table; it needs to be put forth in articles on the House floor right now. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland has revealed through his upcoming book that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Scooter Libby and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, conspired to leak Valerie Plame’s identity and status as a covert CIA agent to the press and then further conspired to cover up that leak. All this was punishment for her husband’s article in the New York Times exposing the lie of the Bush administration’s Iraq war justifications.
Through it all, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the other top White House personnel lied to the public about it. In a famous press conference, Bush said that he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Congress now needs to help him do it. According to this article in the Associated Press:
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."
-------------------------------------------
I wrote in July in this article, that the commutation of Libby by Bush demanded impeachment because it signaled to me that Bush was involved and needed to prevent Libby from breaking and implicating others in the White House in order to save his skin. I urge everyone reading this to go back to my previous article and read it in its entirety. I said at the time:
When Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox as part of the October 23, 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre”, he did it to prevent information being released that could directly implicate him in wrongdoing. Cox had issued Nixon a subpoena requesting the now infamous Nixon tapes and Nixon acted to protect himself and in doing so obstructed justice in the ongoing Watergate investigations. This is not entirely different from what we have with Bush and his commutation of Libby’s sentence. Patrick Fitzgerald filed obstruction of justice charges against Libby because he believed that Libby had information relevant to the investigation and lied or refused to divulge that information. A jury agreed, found him guilty and Libby received 30 months in prison. One of the things prosecutors hope happens in situations like this is when the person obstructing justice is faced with a lengthy prison term, in exchange for avoiding prison they start providing the information they were withholding. Bush’s commutation takes the threat of prison away from Libby and is thus an act of obstruction of justice.Nixon’s actions in the Saturday Night Massacre led directly to several articles of impeachment being filed against him in congress in the ensuing days. A President cannot be allowed to take such a brazen act to impede an investigation in which he is one of the potential suspects. Congress should ALWAYS respond to acts like these with impeachment hearings otherwise Presidents will feel that they can live above the law and avoid the consequences....Now, Bush has purchased Libby’s everlasting silence on a matter that could very well have implicated Bush himself or other members of his administration in a crime. For that, and for many other things before it, both Bush and Cheney should be investigated, impeached and removed from office.
-------------------------------------------------
I knew all this, but I had no idea at the time that someone so close to the inner circle in the White House would come out four months later and reveal how correct I had been.
What McClelland has confirmed is that Bush, Cheney and other erstwhile senior members of the White House are guilty of crimes far greater than those of Watergate. Patrick Fitzgerald needs to gear up his team and House Democratic leaders in congress MUST IMMEDIATELY begin impeachment hearings.
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
I think the "leaks" will just keep on coming as former loyal Bushies can't resist the urge to publish and tell all about this ignominious period in history and their (reluctant) part in it.
But as for impeachment: As I see it, progress RIGHT NOW depends on two people, two "leaders" being willing to uphold their oath of office and only one of them (Kucinich) and not the other (Conyers) is currently doing it.
If Kucinich puts together articles of impeachment against George W Bush, and follows a similar path using a priviledged resolution, as was taken with the resolution aimed at impeaching Cheney, he can probably now, get the House on the record with a roll call on Bush, and probably again now see the resolution passed to the Judiciary Committee (but importantly a roll call would have been done getting each rep in the house on record on impeachment).
Then it would be up to Conyers, author or at least prime mover behind The Constitution in Crisis, to decide if he was going to stand by the courage of his convictions and oath and send BOTH resolutions back to the house.
Conyers could NOW, using the fact that every Republican on the house judiciary committee voted not to suspend the debate on the Cheney impeachment resolution, plus the support of the 5 or 6 democratic judicial committee members (thus a majority) send the Cheney resolution back to the house. Conyers NOW, could make impeachment a very live issue with respect to Cheney. But maybe it would be better for the house to consider the case for impeaching the President either first or at the same time as the Vice.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 9:02:50 PM
And please, understand, it is ONLY a daydream, because the Democrats have decided on their three-pronged strategy for 2008 (ignore election theft, pause on the war so they can blame the Rethuglicans, and avoid "hot" issues like impeachment while making "statements" as they pass bills that POTUS vetoes and the Rethuglicans prevent overrides on) and they will not waver from that. Personally, I see it as an opportunity for the Democrats to get totally trounced, which they will probably then blame on the progressive wing of the party and move even further to the corporate center.
But, back to my daydream...
1. We impeach Cheney, convict, and remove him.
2. Rethuglicans nominate somebody they want to move forward politically as V.P., but the Dems stall the nomination through long hearings and, if necessary, fillerbuster.
3. We impeach Bush, convict, and remove him.
4. Pelosi takes power and immediately starts into the files.
5. Impeachment of numerous other Rethuglican players, both current Administration members and past. Conviction and (when possible) jail time for many of them. At worst, they are prevented from ever "holding a position of honor in the United States Government" forevermore.
6. New A.G. and criminal charges agains thousands of Rethuglcian crooks and liars. The most important being that tens of thousands are charged with crimes committed "under orders" from above without protest. This reminds all the government workers that "following an illegal order" is still a war crime.
7. Asking the Haige to request Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Gonzales, Hadley, Faithe, and a few hundred others to appear as defendents in War Crimes Trials. Upon receipt of the request, bring those folks straight to the Haige under U.S. Armed Guard.
8. Somewhere in here is where I wake up, with a smile on my face, that quickly fades as I realize that none of this will ever happen.
P.S. Scotty McClellan is trying to establish his "brand" as the "nice guy who had to do bad things." The reality is that Scotty is a swarmy schmuck who would say and do anything he was told. He is no better than the spokesperson for Saddam who lied through his teeth to avoid getting killed, except that at least that guy had the fear of death as his motivation to lie while Scotty only had the fear of losing his high-paying and high-profile job. Scotty is a piece of lying crap who KNEW that what he was saying was a lie, even if he had no first-hand contact with the truth. I don't doubt that his bosses told him lies, just like a five-year-old can tell mommy that he didn't eat the cookies, even with the crumbs on his face and the chocolate on his fingers. Only a lying scum could say they didn't KNOW the truth.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 10:28:34 AM
I have always been of the opinion that the Plame/Wilson case was going to be the "leak" that would sink the bush cabal ship. Of all the crimes we know of so far, this one seems the most, despicable and petty. I could never imagine even the most die-hard bush followers backing him up in this one.
I was wrong.
And unfortunately as right as this article points out, impeachment should indeed be put forth, I fear that yet again it won't happen. And to be straight with you, I don't know why. It could be a combination of things, lack of public awareness, apathy, MSM manipulation, broken government, cowardliness, bullshit politics, corruption, whatever it is and as mush as I would thrilled to see it happen I just don't think it will. And believe me next to hitting the lottery on my wish list impeachment would be a close second.
The article's author takes great effort in pointing out that he knew all this back when and was right in assuming that bush, cheney and all the top officials knew and conspired on this case, I don't mean to bust his bubble, but anyone following the antics of this administration knows that these characters are the most diabolical to ever occupy the White House and indeed are guilty of far worse crimes and it doesn't take anyone with an above average intelligence to know this.
But I certainly hope I'm wrong and we do have a Merry Christmas with impeachment proceedings in the works. It would be nice. But, again, maybe it's because I'm just tired of getting disappointed that I don't want to get my hopes up just to have them smacked down once more. However, I will make the obligatory calls and write the letters, yet again, expressing the points brought up in this article and hope I that I may be pleasantly surprised.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1254 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 11:00:52 AM
She was covert and the current head of the CIA confirmed it
You have fallen prey willingly or otherwise to disinformation put out by Republicans to try to confuse the issue. This puts your assertions to bed:
On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:
- During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
- Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
- At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
- This was classified information.
- Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.
- Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.
- Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
- Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. - In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.
---------------------------------
This was in my original July 4th article on the subject linked in this article. This is one of those clear cut situations that shows how willing GOP news sources and talking heads are willing to lie to help a fellow Republican avoid responsibility for something.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 6:28:55 PM
Re: "McClelland Confirms Bush et al Conspired to Leak
Indeed Mr. Leser. Well put.
The leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity and status as a covert CIA agent is a betrayal to the National security of this country. It was a concerted effort by this craven Bush cabal to defraud our Government, which is in-fact a High Crime and Misdemeanor. It's treason!
The American people seriously need to awaken and understand that we're dealng with a very corrupt and odious administration that wraps itself around the flag and uses fear as their tactic of choice to slither their way around our Constitution, which they look at as just a "dam" piece of paper.
However, to some this treasonous ordeal is just a bogus issue, which we should all forget about? I think not!
by
Munich (0 articles, 53 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 737 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 7:38:35 PM
Yeah, I agree. What's more, if Pelosi & Reid do NOT move for
impeachment -- and needless to say, they won't -- one must face the fact that they are guilty of very serious crimes ("aiding and abetting") themselves. They are flagrantly violating their sworn oaths to "protect and defend" the Constitution.
I don't think the Plame matter is anywhere near the worst of BushCo's crimes, but it's a very clear-cut instance of the administration breaking a law. Pelosi & Reid's turning a blind eye to this lawlessness goes right to the heart of the Democrats' role in consistently enabling incredible levels of government criminality.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 12:25:34 PM
I would love to see it all come tumbling down, however I expect we will have more criminal acts to hide the truth and prolong the process. Both sides are in this hide and seek game. It is because the corporate interrests must prevail and both sides love the Blood Money.
The few good candidates are raising issues and somehow you know its still a show. There isn't a one of them that has the stomache for a real confrontation. The only real enemies of the people are either passing out or receiving money in D.C.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 4:37:52 PM
I appreciate what you say regarding the republican propaganda machine...
I agree with it.. In fact, I find it EXTREMELY interesting that when the people actually start seeing through the DEM.REPUB Propaganda machine, something like this surfaces...
You can say whatever you want regarding who says Plame was covert or this was a crime, but the VERY HARD REALITY is simple...
The source of the leak (the Novak article that kick started the whole fiasco) was Richard Armitage. EVERYONE involved with any investigation into this matter knew this from the very beginning... YET, no charge was ever filed...
That is not propaganda; that is fact.
You want to believe that Bush and whoever orchestrated some grand scheme to out a CIA operative in order to get back at Joe Wilson for LYING TO THE NY Times about what was in his report, by all means believe it...
Just bear in mind that the number of charges connected with the crime of outing a covert agent is precisely zero...
that is NOT spin, that is reality.
The questions people SHOULD be asking:“Why is this being brought out now?”“Who is going to be harmed from this latest development?”“Who will benefit from this latest development?”
I guarantee, the answer to the last question is most certainly not the people of the United States...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 507 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 9:29:46 PM
Your attempts to spin this away do you no credit. Really.
Regarding the 'covert' thing. Once again:
1. (We might as well number this as items one through infiniti because nothing comes after or trumps this) The CIA Director has confirmed that the agent in question, Valerie Plame, was covert at the time she was outed and that outing her constituted a violation of applicable laws on the subject. There are no 'buts...' after that.
That is all there is, case closed. On other items you raised like why weren't other people charged...
1. Prosecutors are often selective in who and why they charge people. That isnt the point. Prosecutors decline to charge people of crimes all the time.
2. It may have been that the Libby case was easier to make and Fitzgerald thought he could leverage Libby to implicate the rest (I have always thought this) once Libby had to face down several years in prison. That is what makes the commutation such a heinous crime.
In terms of why now. Well, like many other former high ranking public figures, he decided to write a book and the book is now finished and getting ready to be mass printed and distributed/sold. The "why now" portion of this isnt exactly a matter of complexity or high drama. It is simple. He left a couple of years ago and it took him a couple of years to get settled and write the book. He also may have only recently come into some additional information and/or examined the Libby testimony and found that it directly implicated other members of the white house.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 10:25:04 PM
if Plame had not been a covert agent, there would have been no crime at all. Libby's legal team did not even mount a challenge on this, or if they did it was so quickly quashed by information from the controlling legal authority on this, the CIA Director, that it didnt even make the news, FAUX/GOP news or otherwise.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 10:30:26 PM
I don't know about anyone else here, but when McClelland was in charge of the bush spin machine, I never believed a word that man had to say about anything...
Why, IN THE WORLD, would anyone believe McClelland now?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 507 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 9:33:06 PM
And if you really want me to beat a dead horse, Steve...
Check out this letter from the CIA http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf to Congressman John Conyers confirming that the CIA itself had sent letters to the Department of Justice and the FBI requesting a criminal investigation after the CIAs own internal investigation led it to believe a crime had been committed with regards to the release of classified information and the "disclosure...of the identity of an employee operating under cover".
This is one of those situations where the more you attempt to spin, the worse your position is going to look.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 10:38:12 PM
Could it be because he now has millions at stake in book sales?
Would his claims stand if challenged in court? At the moment it is his word against whom ever (he said she said). If the CIA and or FBI files clearly show specific individuals who have offended then court cases should proceed and if GWB/RC can be shown to have beyond reasonable that that they are guilty then impeach.
As I understand it at the moment there are lots of claims, counter claims but no actual Proof and certainly no specific adverse court finding. Any evidence like this claim needs to be verified and tested. The law system relies on the presumption of innocence untill Poven Guilty. This is a double edged sword it protects us and those we don't like. I've seen mob rule and it's not pretty.
This is definately evidence but of its own and untested it is NOT proof it is another unfounded allegation, Objectivity please.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 2:12:07 AM
You are confusing regular court with impeachment hearings
and they are not the same at all. When congress holds impeachment hearings, it can impeach the President and Vice President for whatever it feels it wants to impeach them and congress has absolute rights to consider whatever evidence in any way it wants. Congress is not under the same rules regarding admissibility of evidence as a traditional American court of law.
That is the danger of a congress run amok like the congress that impeached Clinton. Once the hearings start, there are few rules. The Supreme Court ruled at the time that they (The Supreme Court) have no rights to stop congress from doing anything during the process since impeachment is between the congress and the President and is one of congress' main methods of checking the President's power.
Thus, your call for "objectivity" with regards to admissibility of charges and evidence doesn't make sense.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 8:20:25 AM
I was lead to understand that there was still recourse to the Supreme court (dominated by Bushittes). And 'natural justice' still applied. That there need to be proof not merely allegations.
Given what you say about Congress then logically Congress can impeach the president on the basis of "monday" without any substantial charge at all. If that was the case why didn't the Republicans simply impeach Clinton1 rather than appoint Starr and to investigate his 'crimes'. I'm not saying that I don't believe you I am saying that there must be more to it. If there isn't then I appologise for all my comments to a number of writers. I must have mis understood my lectures on the Constitution. As a consequence I am profoundly disappointed in what I believed was a brilliant document.
If anyone has chapter and verse please advise.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 3:28:44 PM
That is exactly what the Supreme Court said during the
Impeachment of Clinton. The Supreme Court Presides over the impeachment but only in a facilitating role. They decided they have no power to rule over the admissibility of evidence or whether an impeachment was justified. Impeachment is what the congress decides that it is. That is one of the reasons why misusing it in the case of the Lewinsky blowjob was such a dangerous precedent. The house draws up the charges, the senate tries the case and by vote decides if the whole shebang warrants conviction and removal.
The only way that congress is accountable is to the people, which goes to one of the two reasons why Clinton was not removed. #1 - The people of the country would have been outraged, and #2, there were not enough Republicans in the senate to get to the 67 votes needed.
Its good and its bad. Mostly bad. But in the case where a President is a complete criminal and his administration is expert at hiding his tracks and the congress is pretty sure of it, they can color him gone without the evidentiary trail a regular trial would require. But it also means that a blowjob can do the same thing. Again, subject to what the people of this country will ultimately put up with. Most of the house impeachment managers in the Clinton issue were summarily voted out on their arses.
by
Steven Leser (193 articles, 37 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1298 comments)
on Thursday, November 22, 2007 at 4:43:16 PM
