Libby Guilty - Will the Leak-Gate Investigation Continue and go Farther up the Chain?

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070306_libby_guilty___will_.htm

March 6, 2007 at 10:00:33

Libby Guilty - Will the Leak-Gate Investigation Continue and go Farther up the Chain?

by Steven Leser

Does anyone think the conspiracy ends with Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby? How much additional investigation will be conducted of the effort to punish Joseph Wilson by going after his wife Valerie Plame and outing her as a CIA agent?

Wilson, in case anyone forgets, exposed the prewar lie that Iraq was attempting to obtain Uranium from Africa. This earned him the undying hatred of the Bush administration and thus the effort to get at him using his wife's career. Wilson had served as ambassador to Gabon in the first Bush administration and later helped direct Africa policy for President Clinton's National Security Council.

The investigation unearthed much in the way of evidence suggesting that Cheney was directly involved in the efforts to out Plame. Handwritten notes by Cheney showed he had a high level of interest in Joseph Wilson's revelations and that he knew the vocation of Wilson's wife and spent a fair amount of time thinking about all of the above and discussing them with aides.

Much has also been made of Rove’s involvement in Leak-Gate. Rove’s involvement was significant enough to earn him two trips to the Grand Jury investigating the case. Wilson himself has indicated that he has been given information that causes him to suspect Rove and in August 2003 said:

"I have people, who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he (Rove), at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there. Among the phone calls I received were those that said 'White House sources are saying that it's not about the 16 words, it's about Wilson and his wife.' And two people called me up and specifically mentioned Rove's name”

To sum up where we are, the facts are that Libby is guilty and we know Cheney and Rove were involved. Rove’s involvement is important, because with Rove’s involvement, we have a senior official who reports directly to Bush, and is one of Bush’s most trusted advisors and confidants. Since Rove was involved, I think the chances that Bush did not know are slim. If Bush knew, he lied repeatedly to the public when asked whether he knew about the leak and whether he authorized the leak.

If Bush were involved, most people would agree that it would be an impeachable offense. It would mean the President of the United States was intent on going to war regardless of the truth behind the reasons justifying said war. It would mean that to punish those who exposed the incorrect information his administration was distributing to the public, he willfully and deliberately attacked the CIA career of the spouse of someone exposing that information.

One of the questions that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his team must answer is ‘Who was involved’ and they have to answer that question as completely as possible. If Fitzgerald and his team clear any of the people I mentioned, Cheney, Rove or Bush, they must supply the reasoning why they have cleared them. They would owe that both to the people under suspicion and to the public. Until they have the evidence to clear or indict more of the principals, the investigation should continue.

[Kagemusha]

1. Uh, I'm sorry, this writer is very completely out of line.

Fitz has an affirmative duty NOT to supply the public with the reasoning why Cheney, Rove or Bush have not been charged. This does not mean "clearing" them but, the grand jury system in no way permits Fitzgerald the right, let alone the duty, to make such issues public. Fitz tried to figure out behind closed doors what the real deal was and Libby prevented him from doing so, so he charged Libby and got 4 convictions out of 5 counts. He is NOT an independent counsel and cannot, and will not be permitted to, make a report to "publicly clear" anyone not charged.

This writer is very ignorant about the grand jury process. (Edit: The poster is the writer. I didn't realize at first. Does not change my conclusions, and I've replied to his response to this post already.)

[stevenleser]

2. I really do not care about the grand jury process

There is a lot more going on here than Grand Jury Process. We have to know if our highest officials have committed serious crimes.

[Kagemusha]

3. Understand this: if Fitz does what you ask, he will go TO PRISON

Don't ask him to stand up for the majesty of the law by spectacularly breaking it and bringing the entire process into disrepute. The process is one of the few safeguards left against the politicization of the entire legal process. The politicization of intelligence and national security is what brought about the outing of "Valerie Plame" (Valerie Wilson) in the first place.

[stevenleser]

4. I ask him for no more or less than what I would do in his circumstance

If that means falling on one's sword to bring down the administration of a tyrant, so be it. If I/he could find a purely lawful way, then do it that way. Admittedly, I don't know all the powers and restrictions involved, but as I said, they are irrelevant.

The public has a need to know exactly what went on here and the principles of Democracy and whether crimes against humanity were committed in the form of an unjustified war. To me, those trump 'Grand Jury Process" by a mile.

Sometimes, people in the law business get an overinflated view of themselves and the processes of their chosen profession.

[Zynx]

5. Then you would go to prison and be disbarred.

[stevenleser]

7. And your point is?

First of all, we are getting hung up on one small piece of my article. The way that is being done is borderline trollish.

Assuming we are talking about information that is damning, I would gladly make that sacrifice. It really is amazing how people forget how this country came to be in the first place. Our founding fathers, those who we look up to with awe and admiration committed high treason against Britain. The law did not trump human rights and Democracy as far as they were concerned and they risked their lives for that (and, admittedly, to practice unrestrained mercantilism).

Over 3000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in part because of the faulty evidence Wilson tried to expose. You really think I would be afraid to go to jail and lose my law license to ensure Rove and/or Cheney and/or Bush paid the price for whatever role they had in that?

[Zynx]

8. So go to law school, get a law license, get a career, then throw it away with an illegal act.

Talk about what others should do is cheap, especially when advocating this sort of behavior.

Prosecutorial abuse of the grand jury system would solve absolutely nothing. Nothing that would be learned could even be used against Bush or Cheney or anyone else, and it would only land whoever did it in jail and unemployable when they got out.

[stevenleser]

9. No, talk isn't cheap, many people with courage of conviction do these kinds of things...

... one only has to look at Jeffrey Wigand and how he fell on his sword to ensure the Tobacco companies didn't get away with a fast one.

The problem with this whole thread is, both you and the other poster seized on one sentence in my article, assumed it meant one particular thing and beat it until the horse became glue and continued beyond.

If you stop and think, there some possibilities for how information from the Grand Jury could perhaps, be obtained legally. I'll respond to another part of this thread with ideas on that.

[Kagemusha]

6. Well if you don't know I'll tell you: it's Congress' place to step up.

Fitzgerald is part of the Executive Branch, anyway. If he were to pronounce himself judge and jury of Bush, Cheney and Rove, he would be rightly denounced as a constitutional ursurper who needs to be smacked down by the full gravity of the laws Congress has passed to prevent such abuses by Executive Branch officials.

Congress is there to hold the Executive Branch accountable as a whole. US Attorneys can only prosecute specific crimes to the extent they are not blocked by their superiors, by the courts, and by lying scum who obstruct justice. Anything more would be making them the law itself, not enforcers of it.

[stevenleser]

10. So? Then have Fitzwater approach Conyers and suggest that

Conyers begin a congressional investigation into Leak-Gate and suggest that they subpeona each of the players and witnesses, all of the evidence therein, and if necessary, suggest that they even subpeona him (Fitzwater) to provide corroborating or rebuttal testimony.

There are ways this can be done. An even cursory investigation into the limits of Grand jury seals and secrecy provides ways this secrecy can be legally pierced. http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/241/kaditxt.html#heading11

[Kagemusha]

11. He said all he could say on the courthouse steps.

Like I said, Congress needs to step in. And I hope it does! I really do. But it's not up to Fitz to initiate it. He's the executive branch's lawyer. He can't stab it in the back on behalf of Congress without breaching his duties. Like I said. I hope it does. Congress has to ask, though.