Is immunity in offing as Congress looks at Plame case?

[truthpusher]

http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/shared/news/nation/stories/07/01CIA_LEAK.html

Is immunity in offing as Congress looks at Plame case?
---------------------------
By SCOTT SHEPARD
Cox News Service
Monday, August 01, 2005
---------------------------
WASHINGTON — As Congress tip-toes into the controversy over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, some lawmakers and analysts worry that the criminal investigation of the matter could be undermined by any congressional grant of immunity from prosecution, as has happened in the past in politically charged investigations.

The cases of key Iran-contra figures Oliver North and John Poindexter underscore their worries: both were prosecuted and convicted by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, but their convictions were overturned because Congress had granted them immunity in order to compel them to testify in the congressional investigation of the Reagan administration's arms-for-hostages deals.

Walsh, in his final report on the White House brokering arms deals with Iranian terrorists to free American hostages and diverting arms sales profits to anti-government guerrillas in Nicaragua, complained that Congress had "infinitely complicated" his efforts to prosecute North and Poindexter or to force them to testify about the activities of higher-ups in the Reagan administration.

"Immunity is ordinarily given by a prosecutor to a witness who will incriminate someone more important than himself," Walsh wrote. "Congress gave immunity to North and Poindexter, who incriminated only themselves and who largely exculpated those responsible for the initiation, supervision and support of their activities."

Walsh concluded with a word of caution to future lawmakers: "Congress should be aware of the fact that future immunity grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely rule out criminal prosecution."

(snip)

complete story: http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/shared/news/nation/stories/07/01CIA_LEAK.html

[Kenneth ken]

1. exactly my concern

I've posted about this before; I think Congress should wait until Fitzgerald finishes his process and hands down indictments (or not) before they get involved.

[Mairead]

16. Congress shouldn't get involved at all --that's just grandstanding

It should go through the courts: the people who can send criminals to prison.

[savemefromdumbya]

2. I expect this is why Rove is still smiling at this stage?

The Repugs will try ever trick in the book to get out of this one.

[Changenow]

3. That's the only reason for the interest

in hearings.

Its too early for a pardon, a trial would also be uncomfortable. This will make it go away. At least we'll learn who the traitor is.

I wonder if Fritz will prosecute perjury before congressional committees?

[central scrutinizer]

4. well, doh

"Congress should be aware of the fact that future immunity grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely rule out criminal prosecution."


This is exactly why the Repuke controlled Senate has been asked by Bushco to do this. Pardoning everybody would be just too obvious - this keeps Bushco's teflon untarnished.

[In Truth We Trust]

5. Sleaze oozes from these corrupt bastards 24/7. Is there ever going to be

justice and retribution?

Paper ballots NOW!
Hand counts NOW!
Impeachment NOW!

[peacetalksforall]

6. Can immunity or a pardon be granted prior to a conviction?

North and Poindexter were 'prosecuted and convicted' before they were granted useless immunity.

Everyone keeps talking about everyone (in the CIA law breaking case) keeping their jobs because of pardons. How can you pardon without a conviction?

A resignation doesn't protect them either. Right?

Also, it appears that we are talking Cheney and Bush - so the situation becomes much more involved. Right?

[berni_mccoy]

8. Yes and yes.

In the past, the President has been able to pardon someone before charges were made. This was true for Ford's pardon of Nixon and there are several others. I can't remember who pardoned all the draft dodgers (I think it was Carter) for Vietnam, but certainly there were draft dodgers that were not charged. I also believe Lincoln pardoned all soldiers of the confederate army (can't remember the details).

Congress can certainly grant immunity prior to charges. Ambassadors are automatically granted prosecutorial immunity by Congress.

[comsymp]

23. Additionally, IIRC, Weinberger had been indicted, but not yet gone

on trial when Bush The Elder issued the infamous Christmas Eve pardons.

[goforit]

7. A Loop hole for every cri me. So what will the American People do?

Nothing as usual, except bury their heads.

[hang a left]

9. The importance of this story is this.....

If it hits AP or Rueters and it gets widely circulated it just might cut congress off at the knees. Meaning the public will be reminded and/or will understand that there are people in power trying to intervene in our system of justice. They are trying to protect criminals of the highest order for politics.

[Straight Shooter]

10. No one should be above the law.

It's a fine example they're getting ready to set. Why should the average American even bother to obey any law, considering that those at the top get away with high crimes?

I'm disgusted with perpetrators of criminal acts who use loopholes to extricate themselves from being held accountable. What a sorry state of affairs the White House is.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straight Shooter]

31. People lie about their sex lives all the time.

All. the. time. It's a personal issue.

If you've ever worked in a courtroom and witnessed trials, you'll hear whoppers like you cannot imagine. But they don't affect national security. There's the difference.

Sorry, just could not resist :hi:

[lancdem]

37. He did not lie before the grand jury

He lied in his deposition. And since he wasn't charged with perjury, he isn't a perjurer. Believe me, if they had enough evidence, they wolud have.

[edhopper]

11. Another example of how our nation is run

by a broad criminal enterprize. Of course most Americans will fail to wake up to this and we will still have a Repub. Congress in 06.

[wli]

13. as if the elections weren't all rigged anyway

[kestrel91316]

12. How about if Fitz did THIS in the event of Congressional immunity:

indict Hastert and/or Frist (or whoever is granting immunity to the felons) for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Maybe he should telegraph this to them in advance, just so they know what the personal ramifications would be if they interfered.......

(Am I SOOOOO devious??? Would this work????)

[savemefromdumbya]

42. Now you're talking!

I'm sure it would be a interesting case to rule Congress as obstructors of justice!!! What would the supreme court think of that?

[kestrel91316]

43. Well if the President can be sued while in office,

why can't the heads of Congress be prosecuted for obstruction of justice while in office?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[lovuian]

14. I hope the Republicans wrap their arms around Cheney & Bush

and contaminate themselves cause it will ultimately bring them down with Bush!!!

Is it worth it thats the???

Those Polls will be in the toilet and the people will pissed!!!

[Pithy Cherub]

15. The Rule of Law means nothing to Republican'ts intent on breaking it!

Or covering their own asses. :nuke:

Bob Dole did the same thing during Iran Contra...to save law breaking felonious republicans...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithy Cherub]

27. Get a Grip!

Democrats have been tried and continue to be found guilty in a court of law. Rostenkowski, Stewart, et al. Clinton never had the scale of issues presented by republican refugees from the law!

This is scalable because it is seemingly a REPUBLICAN presidential fiat to IGNORE the rule of law when it comes to constitutional practice. Nixon may have escaped your notice too or perhaps the first impeachment Andrew Johnson. Proportionality matters and it is NOT Democrats who have taken a matters of national security and played partisan republican politcs with them, 9/11, DSM, Iraq, Wilson/Plame et al. Dems made some horrible decisions with Iraq, but weren't part of the cabal to make "facts" marketable to an unsuspecting public.

Or is that OK with you because the scale of city politician is equitable in your view with the mammoth sized recklessnes and total disregard of the rule of law by presidential republicans! :eyes:

[Boris]

34. Situational ethics depend on the situation...

As far as I know, as a country, we spent about $30 million on the Starr report, where an independant prosecuter started investigating a real estate deal, didn't find anything, and ended with a sitting President trying to wiggle out of admitting he got a blow job from an intern. The same country, I believe, spent about $11 million investigating 9/11, and who knew what and when they knew it. I wonder what another $19 million in that investigation may have found. I also wonder why the Prez couldn't testify by himself. As far as Chicago, in Illinois, all state and Chicago city politicians are one and the same, Dem., or Rep. Dick Durbin and Baraak Obama are great, but Durbin is Daley's guy, and Obama snuck through the system last fall. You have to be real good to beat the system here. Obama is real good. But I'd hoped to see more from him in the Senate by now.

[lancdem]

38. I have no problem with Dems being prosecuted when guilty

and they have been and continue to be. Bush should be held to the same standard.

[Laurab]

39. hmmmm

2nd post by you I've seen, both anti-dem, pro-GOP - you sure you're in the right place? What Bill Clinton did was NOTHING compared to what this administration has done. What he did was about his personal life, and harmed no one but himself and his family, and the other people directly involved. He did wrong, yes, and it was none of our business because it had NOTHING to do with us.

"We" don't weaken anything, and "we" don't refuse to acknowledge anything, either.

*, on the other hand, has led our country into a war based on lies, directly causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. His administration aided and abetted him knowingly. He SHOULD be locked away forever, and so should the rest of his administration. There are so many other things he's done, as he drives us on down the road to facism, but, hey, he didn't cheat on his wife I guess.

Comparing a heartless war criminal to a philanderer as if the two were equal is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I, personally liked the years of peace and prosperity under Clinton, and if the GOP weren't so slimy, we would never have known about his extracurricular activities - I WISH I didn't know. It's not situational fucking ethics - it's not partisan ethics, and any suggestion that one is equal to the other is ridiculous.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boris]

46. I'm in the right spot.

I thought I made it clear the White Water investigation was a joke. I do believe the whole White House gang should be indicted, yesterday. I agree with war crimes, and I'd also include fraud, treason, murder, and violations of human and civil rights. And don't get me started on the money they've stolen, for their friends and contributers. What pisses you off is the Illinois political thing. I'm sorry, but its true. I read the Trib., Sun Times, and Southtown dailey, here outside Chicago. I'd have to be blind to miss the federal investigation. Same guy investigating the Plame leak. (busy guy) Hard to explain, but in Illinois, a large number of repugs and Dems work together behind the scenes. (it helps to know that in Cook County Ill., we have more levels of Gov. than anywhere else in the country) Right now, an ex-Gov.(R) George Ryan is awaiting trial facing the same prosecuter going after Rove, and city hall in Chicago. That Gov. was elected cause he could cut deals with Daley.(and Madigan, and lots of guys) Peter(not Patrick) Fitzgerald screwed up the deal. He was a repub. millionnaire who managed to win a Senate seat, and he didn't owe nobody nothin. As the GOP Senator from the state when Bush won, he got to appoint a prosecuter. He went outside the state(uh-oh) and appointed Patrick(not Peter-no relation)Fitzgerald, a guy who cut his teeth prosecuting mobsters in NYC. This guy(who I hope brings down the White House)doesn't mess around. Anyway, last week, a key longtime bigwig in the city water Dept.(close, close Daley buddy) pleaded out, and is cooperating in the investigation. One of the things this guy(Dem.) did was bring armies of city workers to the burbs to get his son(Rep.) elected DuPage County prosecuter. People have written books on this stuff, Mike Royko being the undisputed best. I suggest you start with The Boss, if you are interested, or if you just want to read a great book. As for myself, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and I've only skipped the occasional school board election when I didn't feel qualified to vote. I've held my union card proudly for 18 years, and I've poll watched, handed out flyers, walked picket lines, all kinds of fun stuff. I usually just read here, but sometimes I mess up and try to say something. I'm no repub., though.

[Laurab]

48. hmmmm again. I wasn't responding to you...

matter of fact, that person got tombstoned. So, you came back under a different nic I guess. Interesting.

I don't care about Illinois, I care about you (or whoever ) trying to compare *'s multiple impeachable CRIMES with Bill Clinton's blow job, which you, (or whoever - I believe your other nic was navvet or something?) did twice in this thread yesterday. Those posts are now deleted, so apparently I wasn't the only one who found it a little suspect. Thanks for the history lesson, anyway.

[paineinthearse]

17. John Conyers has blogged about the immunity aspect

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1973245&mesg_id=1973245

[Boris]

47. correction, correction please...

I think Donald Tomzack(water dept. guy) got his kid elected Will County prosecuter, not Du Page. It's not real important, both wrap around Cook County. And I can't figure out why, when I point out we spent #30 million investigating Clinton, but only $11 mill., on the 9/11 investigation, I'm branded as questionable. I'll try to stick to reading now.

[Az_lefty]

18. if the pigs try to grant immunity

the Dems should start screaming "obstruction of justice"!!!! this is clearly what it is.
:grr:

[progressoid]

19. Well, hell yes. If all of their other dirty tricks don't work

(but I think they will), they will definitely use immunity and/or pardons to get their collective fat out of the fire.

[rateyes]

20. I agree that we should be very careful what we ask for...

let Fitz do his job and bring his indictments. If Repukes start calling for hearings...we need to scream bloody murder about NOBODY getting immunity unless we have written affidavits from the immunized that finger BFEE. Personally, what I'm worrying about is the fact that Shrub gave recess appt. to Bolton---seems like he may be key in the Plame matter---might be paying him off to shut him up----then, again, I might need to get out my tinfoil hat----It won't be long before we hear from Fritz anyway.

[EVDebs]

21. In the Miller / Novak cases, immunity would reveal ongoing Op Mockingbird

domestic CIA operations of media manipulation. This isn't likely to be a re-run of Iran-Contra. What gets disclosed this time is BIG STUFF...heads will roll. Where Dems cooperated will be attempted to mollify but the end result is mostly Rep overreach.

[rrrevolution]

22. One possible scenario . . .

One possible scenario ... Fitzgerald discloses his evidence BEFORE the guilty parties have an opportunity to testify before Roberts' Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- that way they have nothing to testify about which could be the consideration for an immunity deal.

So there they are under subpoena to testify before the Senate Committee, and subject to questions from DEMOCRATIC SENATORS about matters they would rather not discuss, including their knowledge of what Bush knew and when he knew it. However, they have to come up with something that Fitz does not have to save their own skins from criminal prosecution, and they can't pick and choose which questions to answer. (Rove under cross examination would be worth the price of admission!)

So there is Bush, with underlings about to spill the beans on him. My guess is Bush decides to pardon everyone concerned "for the good of the country, so we can move on to the people's business." But he cannot pardon himself.

Will enough Repubs in the House vote to impeach their imperial leader? Maybe. Remember Bush is a lame-duck, and after all the dirt becomes public showing Bush lied, they just might. If they did, Bush would almost certainly resign rather than risk conviction by the Senate. Plus resignation would make issuance of a pardon for him easier for whoever takes over. Cheney should go down with him, leaving the Speaker of the House to take over for the remainder of the term. Which could be interesting since mid-term elections in 2006 could result in a DEMOCRATIC Speaker of the House acting as President.

None of the above will happen without a fight, and you can be sure that Bush & Co will use everything at their disposal to remain in power.

[Alizaryn]

26. If this scenerio did end up allowing for immunity

to someone such as Rove. Would it also provide him immunity for charges like perjury or conspiracy?

[WhiteTara]

28. of course! This is why Robertson

wants to have a hearing. He gives them all immunity and poof, there goes the case.

[lovuian]

29. You guys don't get it!!! Conviction is not the point!!!

Letting the American people see them testify and say I outed the Cia Agent I tried to destroy the CIA I lied to the American people about Iraq!!! Oh and by the way NA NA NA NA I'm walking scot free!!!

A conviction would be nice but for the American People to see that they have been hoodwinked and the people who supported this fraud well the American people are going to be pissed and take to the streets these polls are a reflection at how shakey these Republicans are right now!!!

TRUST
the people can't trust anymore so this whole republican system is in Big Trouble and will fall with a crash!!!

[agincourt]

30. I wonder what kind of uniform Rove can put on,

and bullshit the entire country like fascist Ollie North did when he testified in front of congress during Iran-Contra. Maybe Rove can don a turd blossum camo uniform and be call himself "a real american hero" for leaking to Bob Novak.

[sattahipdeep]

32. Getting them out is the point. ( tricky dicky)

Conviction would be good but look what
happened to tricky dicky doesn't seem to matter when u got the $$$

[jurassicpork]

33. "Congress should be aware

...of the fact that future immunity grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely rule out criminal prosecution."

Exactly, Isn't that the point?

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[sattahipdeep]

35. Look at where the guys r now from watergate

If we prosecut them all.......would cost a fortune and they still would go free

just like dicky an all the rest.

[sattahipdeep]

36. The only way to win is to outlive the bastards.

Until then all we can do is to try and slow them down.

[lovuian]

40. You know guys I want to see the explanations for spending

185 billion dollars for a lie!!! This criminals now think they are getting away with it but the worm turns and then the rules can change anytime and they could be locked up for this fraud!!!

The History Books are going to be Brutal!!!

[savemefromdumbya]

41. www.costofwar.com

just type in your state and see
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar/index.html

[slaveplanet]

45. IMO

Hoekstra, in a mid-week speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said his hearings would focus on toughening federal laws barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.


The laws in place, are already very explicit, and tough enough....he's spouting BS that indicates ulterior motive.