UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has the clip of Sen. Schumer from Face the Nation.
From selise, who was watching Face the Nation this morning:
senator schumer on face the nation…. saying he spoke with senator leahy yesterday about the possibility of calling pat fitz to testifiy before the senate judiciary committee – on his meeting with bush and cheney (since this was not testimony before the grand jury)
Paddy at Cliff Schecter’s blog caught it, too.
Further, John Conyers, on This Week this morning, suggested that George Bush waive executive privilege as Bill Clinton did when there were questions about the Marc Rich pardon, so that Congress can get to the bottom of whether or not obstruction of justice was intended in the Libby pardon. ThinkProgress has the video. (H/T to twolf1 for the link.)
Sens. Leahy and Specter were on CNN’s Late Edition this morning as well. I just watched their discussion about the possibility of asking Pat Fitzgerald to come and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as well. Specter went on a long, bloviating attempt to minimize the Traitorgate investigation and ended with saying he thought it would be great if Fitzgerald explained to him what the case was all about — and Leahy pounced on that agreement to have Fitzgerald before the committee. Having seen the opening statement that Fitzgerald gave in the Libby trial, I have to say that having him explain the case to the Senate Judiciary Committee…with television cameras rolling to capture the explanation…is the best idea I’ve heard all day.
This is a good time to remind Congressional staffers and members of the press that the potential for digging into grand jury testimony for a proper purpose also exists under Rule 6(e) — read this great piece from Looseheadprop for more on this.
Obstruction of justice should not be allowed to occur without everyone asking what they are trying to hide. So, how many lies are under the obstruction basket, anyway?
(Photo of chocolati mocha via ChrisB in SEA.)
Related posts:
- Breaking: Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination – 13 to 6
- Sotomayor: One Confirmation Down; Many More to Go
- Executive Privilege and the Cheney Interview Documents
- Fitzgerald-Cheney Interview: A Comedy of Excuses
- SCOTUS: Compare GOP Stall On Alito and CAP With Full Disclosure On Sotomayor and PRLDEF
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Fitz!!!
whoa
zunoed?
Ah, missed it by THAT much
smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em . . .
I’ll have a double Fitz, signed, sealed and delivered.
I just posted this below (which is how I knew a new thread had arrived).
Editorial from today’s Denver Post: Go Blue Young Westerners
Yes, I reviewed the LHP presentation the other day. I say, let the information roll.
The Raw Story tape with George S./Conyers is teh funny. George, that is. I give it a 707!
I’d be interested in knowing whether Fitz stayed away from Cheney because he thought that was Congress’ role.
He’s pretty tight-lipped; how forthcoming do you think he would be?
I’d love to see him testify, though. He knows a lot that hasn’t been made public-that alone would be worth the price of admission.
-ck- @ 5
Take a break in place!
Re: Fitzgerald subpoena (would it take that? IANAL)-
And Let There Be Light…
Force the obstruction issue. Impeach Cheney.
Sort of OT: Does anyone know what the dems reason is for NOT Impeaching?
You know, this conduct from Specter is a damn disgrace!! The guy used to be a city DA after all. He knows damn well why Libby went to jail. He is engaging in another cover up himself. The bastard doesn’t care about the country, obviously.
This just in. Fox Sunday has scratched its lineup. Instead, today they are featuring Scooter Libby, tap dancing and singing “Those Little White Lies,” with the First Obstructionist and Deputy Darth in the shadows singing backup (doo-wah, doo-wah) against a backdrop of spinning 5X4 photos of SCOTUS.
Rep. Conyers predicts Bush cooperation as impeachment support grows
Impeachment Happens @ 13
Part of the reason is that it would be a conflict of interest to Pelosi, since both Shooter and Shrub would need to be impeached. Other than that, it is because of political cowardice.
Let’s consolidate all these potential and ongoing hearings. Impeach the veep.
Lou Costello @ 16
I hope Conyers wakes up. Start proceedings damn it!! As the stories about the corruption grow, the clamor will get louder. At this point I bet a lot of Republicans are tired of Smirk and Shooter too. They are just afraid of saying so publicly.
So Pelosi needs to recuse herself, right? Or whatever the equivalent is in this case. If conflict of interest is valid, then impeachment of prez/VP can never happen.
So, did any of the Gambino heads on sticks make the false equivalancy argument comparing Marc Rich to Scooter Libby?
Conyers mentioned the “I” word on Greg Stephs show. –And talked about problems with getting Sara Taylor before the committee. I thought Sara Taylor was in the bag already(so to speak). I guess I was wrong. I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention. Urgh
BTW, Conyers is smoking dope if he thinks that Bush will cooperate. He doesn’t cooperate with anyone. He is a 3 year old, remember? How many 3 year olds do you know that cooperate on their own?
Well, I for won was just stunned when Specter, on Wolf B, just referred to Valerie Plame, quite blatantly as Valerie FLAME. Do not tell me that was a mistake. I take it as another smug handful of sand thrown in the face of the umpire.
Twisted Martini @ 21
Totally. Imagine Brooks in a skunk hat.
I keep waiting for someone to ask WHY Scooter felt compelled to lie, but no one ever did. Of course, the Repug point is that it was just faulty memory.
So the jury and the judge and the prosecutor were all wrong? I wonder how many thousands of times that happens every year. So the repugs don’t think our jury system works? I actually agree with that one, although I’m quite certain THEY don’t.
“spoke with senator leahy yesterday“
to know that some dems were working, despite it being a holiday week & time for them to be w/ their families, makes me feel encouraged that they DO take whats happening in our country as seriously as we do. after all – we dont stop reading & commenting on holidays & weekends!
LS @ 24
See, people pooh-poohed me when I thought it was significant that Judy Miller wrote Valerie Flame in her notes. I think it wasn’t a mispelling. I think it was done on purpose.
I just reread LHP’s analysis of how to get Fitz to be able to testify and to get access to all the documents that he saw. It sounds as though the House, acting in the capacity of “grand jury” in a possible impeachment, would have the authority it needed to get Fitz to talk. In any event, the House judiciary committee needs to be much more aggressive in going after Cheney directly. After all the yammering about “no underlying crime” let’s give them what they want and indict (impeach) Cheney. He was, after all, the architect of the Plame leak.
Conyers does look like he needs a shot of adrenaline.
Fitz testifying?!
Could we be so lucky?
if so, lhp’s research on how to get the grand jury testimony out will come in very handy.
I was talking to my brother who is an attorney recently, and he said there is absolutely no way that Scooter, as an attorney, didn’t know what he was doing.
btw, Jeffrey Feldman is on C-Span’s Book TV at the moment. FYI.
mui @ 28
I think it was not only in her notes, but used somewhere else as well, Russert? To me it sounds like a sarcastic bastardization of her name, as if to diminish her…held in contempt enough to deliberately not get the name right…Specter’s useage makes me wonder how much he was involved in the knowledge of this at the time. It is as if she was discussed in this way until it rolled off his tongue effortlessly. He knows exactly what her name is. This is really very interesting…and disturbing.
Turns out there is Constitutional justification for Jame’s Madison ing that a President could have his powers suspended while undergoing impeachment. The funny thing is…it didn’t seem to exist in Madison’s time.
But it’s clear that the 25th Amendment gives Congress quite a bit of to INVOLUNTARILY SUSPEND THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT for about 24 days and replace them with the next person in the line of succession.It would get REALLY interesting if there was a vacancy in the VP position due to impeachment, death, or resignation.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments OR of such other body as Congress may by law provide , transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble , determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall RESUME the powers and duties of his office .
It seems to me that if there is no VP the proviso for him and the Cabinet to decide incapacity would be void…and an appointed Congressional body would make that determination. In fact, the use of the term “OR” suggests that these are actually PARALLEL means to declare incapacity…and that Congress could do so even if there WAS a VP and Cabinet that made no such determination.
The President could certainly fight such an involuntary suspension. But the suspension would remain up to 24 days after his letter of intent to return to office – even if there was no determination by a super-majority of both Houses. But he could NOT return to power until there was a vote…or that 24 day duration.
A majority (or even a strong minority) of Congress could filibuster and delay any vote until the 24 day cycle was over…thus suspending the ability of the President to act within that period.
During that period the Acting-President would be whomever was eligible following the order of Succession. If no VP was seated then the Speaker of the House would act in that role.
If there were some action that was threatened by the President during the build-up to these actions (e.g. war, suspending Congress, suspending the election, martial law, etc.) the Acting President, with the cooperation of Congress, could undertake to pass legislation that would inhibit the acts of the returning President.
This act could also be used to block “last minute pardons” after the elections or prevent desperate manoeuvres by a cornered Executive to destroy materials or issue Executive orders blocking testimony of his staff.
mui @ 30
I like Conyers a lot but his style is way too somnolent. I’d like to see a lot more fire and see him go after this thuggish bunch a lot more aggressively.
Why is it that we have to lead them?
Why was it Fitz said he couldn’t appear before congress the last time he was asked?
mui @ 28
Hey…it means that Libby told Arlen about “Flame” too! Seems Artlen is a bit close to the leakers if he’s using their weird variations on Plame’s name.
“or of such other body as Congress may by law provide…”
Don’t you think the neocons already dealt with this by stealth legislation, the Secret Government that Woodward talks about? There probably is already a designated group and it might not produce the president we hope for.
barbara @ 20
Didn’t a vacancy in the office of Vice President exist when Andrew Johnson faced impeachment proceedings in 1868? Had he been convicted in the Senate, having escaped conviction by one vote, who was next in line to succeed him?
Loo Hoo at 37 — Because they just asked him and didn’t issue a subpoena as required by DoJ regs to get around the DoJ just declining entirely. Which is why I suggest they read LHP’s piece…pronto.
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 17
Well, if they’re not going to impeach and they don’t have the votes to get any legislation passed then what, pray tell, will they DO for the next 18 months? Hold hearings?
I have to admit – the Dems lost me when they signed away Habeas Corpus.
Gawd I’m stuffed. We had catfish and fried cornbread for breakfast.
cinnamonape @ 38
Whoa. Specter sure has had his hand in a lot of other nasty business. Maybe this too?
cinnamonape @ 38
I’d love to get him under oath, Specktor’s hands are not clean
Oklahoma kiddo @ 43
O’siyo. Love me some catfish…
John Dean has it right. Impeach the vice president.
cinnamonape @ 9:08 am -
Reposting my comments from the previous thread:
To the best of my knowledge, Congress has not passed legislation to establish the parallel means you mentioned in your interesting comment.
Please note that Section 4 does not contain a comparable means for declaring that the Vice President is unable to discharge his duties; Section 2 of the 25th Amendment discusses what happens in case of a vacancy in the office of the Vice President.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 43
D’oh!
Morning OKK!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 47
But then who will run the country????
newtonusr @ 49
;0)
Twisted Martini @ 23
0.
Though, when my son was 3 and sufficiently “persuaded,” he did occasionally surrender with a grudging, “OK — I’ll DO the stupid coopawate!”
LS @ 46
;0)
Impeachment Happens @ 50
Karl Rove. ;0)
LS @ 34
Yeah, someone else. I think Libby couldn’t get her name “right” too. Not sure.
So are we going to see Sara Taylor testify or what? Conyers implied that she wants to, but the WH doesn’t want her to.
A slightly OT comment, but it touches on the meta-narrative essence of why we blog –
In 2001, the Nobel Prize for Economics went to Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz for their work on effects of asymmetric information on the marketplace.
Asymmetric information led us into Vietnam and Iraq; it has corrupted our political institutions, skewed the financial marketplace in favor of the super rich, and undermined the integrity of the traditional media — which is why we trust the blogs more than the NY Times.
A nugget from the Financial Cryptography blog –
Another from Business Week –
It’s interesting stuff, and some of the most important work in the dismal science — it would be good to see what Artios has to say about it.
second best idea i’ve heard all week. here’s hoping.
Elliott @ 45
Do you get the feeling the Spector totally deludes himself into think he’s a righteous standup kind of guy. Sorta of the HoJoe mentality. So “holy,” so full of entitlement . . .
driving by again:
http://rawstory.com/showarticl…..5410.shtml
precis: florida officials now have evidence that caging in florida to throw the election by disenfranchising black and other minority and low income voters was being planned well before the election.
According to tpmmuckraker, the WH is saying “up yours!” to all subpoena requests.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003621.php
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 40
That would have been the then Speaker of the House, Schuyler Colfax…who actually became Ulysses Grant’s Vice-President after Johnson’s term ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuyler_Colfax
He hardly “paid dearly” for his efforts to impeach Johnson.
Colfax, California is named after him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuyler_Colfax
Re today’s NYT Supereditorial:
Latest FaBlog: All Out of Friedmans
Alfred Kelgarries @ 59
Hmmm. Mike Hightower. Soon to appear before a jury of his peers?
Do you think they all used the name “Flame” to deny having talked about “Plame” if questioned. Spector merely got “confused” about the coverup conversations. Spector using Flame is too weird not to be important.
Methinks Valerie Plame was seen as interfering with their desire to claim the presence of Iraq WMDs prior to 2003, and they may have been referring to her as “Valerie Flame” way before the 2003 16 words and the protests of her husband. They may have been after her first, and then found out afterwards that she was, indeed, married to Joe Wilson; so they went after them both as a “twofer”.
Twisted Martini @ 60
Conyers said they were negotiating with Sara Taylor, but having trouble with the WH.
mui @ 56
i don’t understand the legal issues here. if sara taylor wants to testify, can the WH stop her? is it up to her or the WH or congress? i don’t understand what her role is in deciding to honor or reject the subpoena.
I’m a little late to the party here, but re: the original post: what makes anybody think AGAG will permit Fitz to testify before Congress? He’ll claim Executive Privilege (because DOJ is part of the Executive branch, don’tcha know), sticking out his tongue and forcing Congress to slow walk it through the courts until Bush’s term is up. It’s the Addington method and we should all be familiar with it by now.
Alice B @ 65
I hope C&L or someone plays the clip, because it was so obviously deliberate.
selise @ 68
I don’t understand either.
A long multi link comment seems to have disappeared down the toobz (bad) or captured by the mod filters (not so bad).
Alice B @ 65
Democratic Party, or Democrat Party.
Plame, or Flame.
Couple more days of other Goopers “misstating” Valerie’s name and we’ll know.
LS @ 70
All it proves to me is that the Republikans are bunch of Stalinists. They all say the same thing at the same time, probably per party orders. Like now they are all screaming Marc Rich.
-ck- @ 72
Refresh and it will appear.
newtonusr @ 73
Good point. Watch for Katie O, for example.
Damnit! I was really looking forward to the Sara taylor Harriet Miers show. How can we help our congressional democrats to help themselves. Honestly?
Alice B @ 65
“Look”, “at the end of the day”, it’s just their “narrative”!
“Colfax, California is named after him.”
Colfax, Meadow Vista, Applegate, Blue Canyon, Cisco Grove. The places I used to play in.
mui @ 59
so full of haggis
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 7, 4:38 PM ET
HA! HA! HA! HAAAAAAA!!!!
Ha, ha, ha… !!!!!
LS @ 76
Focus, people. Focus. May or may not be important. Bright shiny things. Exactly the kind of thing the Repuglicans hope will distract us from the I-word. Which, at this point, really is just a word.
mui @ 70
atrios doesn’t understand either.
Let’s not forget that Spiro Agnew was removed as VP for crimes committed before he took office.
Some slimey scum on dead-eye is beginning to surface now from his time at Halliburton.
Think maybe the CIA is starting to release some info as payback for Valerie’s outing?
mui @ 71
All I can think of is they are just being petulant hoping that they can use this as a bargaining chip in some sort of deal. I hope Congress doesn’t fall for it.
Valerie “Flame”? The GOP doesn’t like uppity women.
Valerie Wilson may have been one of the CIA officers complaining about Cheney’s intelligence pressure…hence the nickname “Flame”.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 48
The Vice President would have to be impeached (or die or resign) for a vacancy to occur, that’s clear. I’m not sure what “powers” that Congress could take away…given the fact that such powers he has are from acting as an agent of the President.
But the Constitution does seem to envisage two means for the involuntary removal of a PRESIDENT. One that is initiated by the VP and cabinet…the other by the Congress. It doesn’t seem that the process is one that is one initiated by the VP and then brought to Congress. Both are co-equal and parallel means to determine a President unfit.
If there was no VP then the ONLY way that a President who was incapacitated to be suspended from his duties would be through some sort of Congressional action. The Constitution does not envisage the Cabinet (unelected officials) proceeding on their own.
Just as there is no law that specifies HOW the VP and Cabinet are to proceed in this matter it seems that the Amendment is vague on the mechanisms for the Congress to Act. Does the Constitution allow for the VP and Cabinet to establish their own procedures? Or does it require a law…and who then would sign it into law?
The same problem arises with the Congress. Does it have the authority to establish it’s own Committee or use one already established…such as the Judiciary or Ways and Means), or does it require the President (who may already be incapacitated) to consent. In the case of a truculant, mentally ill President that consent would seem impossible to obtain…thus defeating the very intent of the Amendment.
With all the docs & hearings Specter has read/participated in regarding Mrs. Plame-Wilson, he refers to her maiden name as “Flame?”
Unless you’re finally showing Alzheimer’s symptoms, Arlen, please stop insulting the public’s intelligence…
selise @ 83
Maybe we should call Conyers and ask what the deal is? Or write a letter. Since none of us understand why Sara taylor is not free to testify as per WH orders.
i heartily recommend listening to Harry Shearer’s “Le Show” this week. (today @ 1PM EST – 10AM PST)
he’s always right on the mark w/ his political satire & he’s got lots of fodder for this weeks show.
you can also catch it streaming here:
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/ls
barbara @ 82
Considering the commutation as an obstruction of justice, it seems important to note the the smear of a covert agent continues to this day and the circle of obstructors widens.
AZ Matt @ 81
see also http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/
I want our Speaker to stick it to ‘em.
Dave Lindorff has a great post up at Smirky, here is a tidbit from ‘Bush, Cheney and the Scarlet Letter’:
“So forget that red herring about a Senate trial being a non-starter.
Who cares about a Senate trial! For myself, I think that once we got those impeachment hearings going, and once the crimes of this administration started being aired on live television for all to see, and without the mediation of reporters and spin doctors, a Senate trial and conviction would be extremely likely, but whether I’m right or not really doesn’t matter.
What we need is impeachment hearings and impeachment by the House!
Enough excuses!”http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8562
Freddie Thompson? Bring this guy on! Rudy and Freddie. Now there’s a combo.
egregious @ 39
You never see the puppet master pulling the strings.
Make the goopers stand for election having voted on these two issues:
getting out of Iraq
and
impeachment.
The interesting question is how does the polling breakdown district by district and state by state after sufficient publicity around obstruction of justice by Bush/Cheney. We already know what the vast majority thinks about Iraq.
OT – Here is a very interesting link to a new posting w/ video on further Bush lies about BushCo’s intent in Iraq. Bush has always said we would leave, yet the new US military bases are the biggest anywhere. And the new US Iraq embassy will house 8,000 American families. The video shows Gary Hart and former CIA operatives laying out thier beliefs that the US will be in Iraq at least as long as we have been in Okanawa.
Urgh Sara Taylor/Whitehouse via SFgate. Is Taylor full of shite?
oddmommy @ 94
Does it say whether or not he was a trash picker like Karl Rove? Heh!
FYI — Crooks and Liars has the Sen. Schumer clip up.
mui @ 101
The WH “urging” does not “forbid”. Interesting choice of words…I hope they’re not threatening her.
QuakerGirl @ 98
until we pull back the curtain!
Impeachment Happens @ 50
Karl, still and again.
RE: Sara Taylor — it’s the Reagan years and the Iran Contra duck and cover gambit all over again. Hiding behind Sara Taylor so they can continue to obstruct and potentially avoid a contempt citation showdown for the President in the process…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 107
Interesting comments from Chuck on commutation and pardon. Commutation actually shields the WH more.
Thanks for the great news from Face the Nation. Last week on Democracy Now and Chris Matthews Joe Wilson brought up how the statements made to the Special Prosecutor in the Plame outing investigation by Bush and Cheney should be released.
http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..05/1415239
Wilson on Matthews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbDZr6MnTZs
Watched Fox this morning. Can anyone tell me why Mara Liasson is presented as a representative with a perspective from another side other than the right wing radicals. On Fox this morning Mara brought up how the Plame investigation had not focused on the “real leaker Armitage” How is it that Mara is unaware of all the leakers. She made an effort to distract from Libby’s crimes.
She also brought up the Clinton Rich pardon comparing this to the Libby issue. Is she really unable to see the difference in the crimes of Rich (Clinton was an asshole to pardon him) and the crimes of Scooter Libby? Mara Liasson did not represent another perspective. She was on Kristol’s page.
Is she tied up in the roots of the “cakewalk in Iraq” zealots. She certainly sounds as if she is.
mui at 108 — Yep, keeps the 5th privilege alive and well for Scooter, and the appeal alive and well so that they can claim ongoing proceedings to refuse to cooperate with any fact-finding. It’s a stall maneuver until the end of Bush’s term.
btw, Scarecrow has a fresh thread up for everyone…
I’m not sure how easy it will be for Fitzgerald to proffer what they want, but it would be interesting to see how they go with it.
Keep in mind that his revelations about Bush’s status as leaker in chief came in connection with resisting production to Team Libby.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/g…..yplame.pdf
Despite the current President’s criminality and the fact that most of DOJ is willing to fetch and stay with under their new call name of Rico, someone has to take at least a shot at maintaining a semblance of propriety in their responses.
Fitzgerald points out in his filings a legitimate concern over pressure to produce that might “chill the willingness of future presidents and high-ranking government officials to assist criminal investigations of staff members holding sensitive positions.”
If they do call him, I hope that they have someone who has actually looked at and prepped for questioning about the NIE cherrypicks being covertly planted in violation of the Nat Sec Act.
That is a separate crime and while, at the time, everyone dismissed it – saying that Fitzgerald would have pursued it if it was a crime – I’m hoping that in light of having to dig more to understand the appointments clause challenges and why Fitzgerald did NOT have “plenary” powers – it is much more clear that this was something he couldn’t have charged under his mandate. And if you look at transcripts where Walton and Team Libby push on the NIE and that Libby was “authorized” bc Bush had “declassified” and so it was not “illegal” you will find, over and over, a pretty careful parsing by the Special Prosecutor’s team to say they are not CHARGING for the NIE revelations – but never do they really give in and say it was legal.
Bc it wasn’t.
For my part – I’m pretty positive it is why Bush got private counsel. And it is a whole different set of crimes than the Plame revelations and it is also one that provides a prima facie case against the President.
But in my heart, I’m afraid the shallow-analysis, coverup themed burial of the importance of the NIE revelations initially may have killed that case before it drew its first breath.
NIE?
mary at 112
cinnamonape @ 89
One more point on this…the Constitution often allows for the technical aspects of things to be handled outside of its margins.
Congress has NEVER specifically established HOW the VP and the Cabinet are to ascertain the incapacity of the President to fulfill his duties. Is it the VP that determines it on his own, or do the Cabinet members vote? What’s a quorum? Is a law needed to determine this also?
It’s actually easier for Congress since the Constitution states that a “Power of Congress” is to constitutee Committees and Rules to fulfill it’s functions and duties. Thus such a Committee would be legally able to be Constituted as the need arose, perhaps just as the VP/Cabinet would develop their own procedures.
And I never said that the VP could be removed from his duties using THIS 25th Amendment criteria. The VP can be impeached, however. A resignation or death can also vacate the office. There is some debate as to whether a President can fire a truculent VP…although he can basically limit his powers to the point that his role is that of a “bucket of spit”. His role would be circumscribed to being the Parliamentary President of the Senate (and tie-vote breaker).
Once there is no VP…the Acting President would pretty much have to be the Speaker of the House (and not Alexander Haig ;-)
peterboy at 113 — National Intelligence Estimate. What Cheney told Scooter that Bush had “insta-declassified” (only for the parts that made them look good, mind you) so that Libby could then discuss it with Judy Miller to plant a favorable story in the NYTimes.
video of schumer up at Crooks and Liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..estioning/
Joe Wilson on Democracy Now the other day:
“At that time, you may recall, there were a number of intelligence analysts who were speaking off the record or in deep background about the pressure that they had felt from Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby’s repeated trips to the Defense Intelligence Agency headquarters and the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, the barrage of questions designed to elicit responses, which would strengthen their case for war. In other words, they had clearly made a decision to go to war, and they were shaping the facts to fit the decision. That is now abundantly clear. And they, in compromising and betraying Valerie’s identity, they clearly wanted to shut up those analysts who were speaking anonymously and trying to get the truth out on these particular matters.”
They wanted to put out the “Flame”.
we all should recall that the armitage dodge refers to who leaked to a reporter (Novak, if you can call him that) who then did a story. Rove and Libby also leaked, but the reporters didn’t write a story. It is still a leak and disclosure to a non-authorized person. The question of whether it was a crime prolly has to do with intent, knowledge of her status as covert and some other factors that I forget.
But there were at least three folks involved in leaking, prolly more if you include co-conspirators such as dick and addington.
(thanks, Christy for the NIE answer.)
Sara Taylor sent 60,000 e-mails using the RNC accounts if I heard the TeeVee correctly. Her lawyer is committing more obstruction of justice or bright shiny distraction.
“Please, please Fred, tell me I do not have to talk to the bad men. They are not Americans and they want to hurt our President”
“It is so unfair, to make me an object. And the Constitution is outdated. Fredo told me so.”
Couldn’t Libby be offered immunity. I know that’s a real gamble, so do it after they talk with Fitz at the judicial committee hearing.
I think exposure of possible wrong doings by Fitz would help ensure truthful testimony by Libby.
can anyone remind us why, in terms of the statutory requirement and intricacy, Fitz was unable to prosecute for leaking–other than Libby’s throwing sand.
IE–what are the elements of the crime of leaking the identity of a CIA agent?
peterboy at 121 — start with this post on the basics from way back in the investigation days.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 107
“she wants to testify” – john conyers on george stephanopoulos this morning
Educated Plaintiff at 123 — Yes, and so did Monica goody-two-shoes Goodling, and look how much she held back. These people are true believer political operatives — the only thing they want to do is try and thread the needle between saving their own asses and protecting their political puppeteers at the same time — anyone who thinks that Taylor won’t protect Rove at all costs is fooling themselves.
Kathleen @ 109
she also seems to be unaware that novak’s column got published 1st b/c time mag & the ny times held the story
LS @ 66
I thought she changed her name to Wilson when they were married. If the WH knew her as Plame (or Flame), that would make it a really old grudge, wouldn’t it?
Educated Plaintiff @ 123
On Steph’s show Conyers also said that the President and Vice President do not want her to. Does that matter?
Tannen @ 120
Why was Ari Fleisher given immunity way back? Where is Ari working now? AEI?
peterboy @ 118
As well, the Unauthorized persons who were told about Plame’s status included WH staffers who were not in the “need-to-know” chain. The documents that contained the information about Plame and Wilson were Classified at some of the highest classification levels.
Yet the information contained within were treated utterly cavalierly with individuals who had low level classifications and who had no need to see or learn about specific aspects being “fed” information.
Plame’s identity should have gone no further than Cheney from the CIA…if THAT! Wilson’s diplomatic expertise and contacts in Niger, as well as the fact that he successfully ferretted out information about IRANIAN efforts to procure yellowcake from Niger in 1999 would have been adequate to explain why he was selected by Plame’s superiors.
Instead they contrived a bogus rationale and fed it to blabbers and journalists. They had to know that the story would soon be made public. But the fact that unauthorized individuals did receive it would constitute a violation if the leakers knew she was covert (or her status was classified) and that they did this intentionally (and repetition is evidence of intent).
Thanks, Christy @ 122.
but a question on this:
18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. This is part of what is more commonly known as the Espionage Act, and this statute has not been discussed widely enough in the media, frankly….
“Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to…or being entrusted with…information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it….[s]hall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.”
How come no charges here? This one was pretty clearly what Rove and Libby did, it seems to me.
GordonM @ 126
Has there ever been testimony that Valerie Plame and either Cheney or Libby ever actually met personally during their visits to the CIA in the lead up to the war??
peterboy @ 121
Plame certainly fits all the criteria of being a covert agent under the Act…we know know that she was serving abroad even on the eve of the exposure (having travelled abroad at least seven and perhaps over 10 times from January 2002). The Act merely states that one must have served abroad within 5 years of the exposure.
Where Fitz had problems I suspect is in showing INTENT and KNOWLEDGE of Plame’s covert status. Libby’s evasions and his contradictory testimony to that of others individuals involved in the case (for example Armitage) made it impossible to determine who, if anyone, actually even discussed Plame’s status or intent of revealing her identity. Libby claims he doesn’t remember most of the discussions that others recall (although he recalls excruciating details about other things…there’s a selective amnesia involved).
As well, the intent was an issue…though I can’t see how Armitage telling two different reporters in the manner he did could not be other than INTENTIONAL. Contrary to these reporters assertions his remarks were hardly “off-handed” when one examines their SWORN testimony.
So it’s mainly whether one needs to have the express MOTIVE to harm the national security and intent to aid the enemies of the US. The law is ambiguous here…whether this applies to INTENT or IMPACT.
peterboy at 136 — Because the Espionage Act has never been used previously for that sort of prosecution. And that is one hefty precedent to set in a nest of vipers who would then use it against any and all people they felt like once that door had been opened. It isn’t just a one-off prosecution that Fitzgerald would have begun with that sort of charge under these circumstances, and he had to take that into account. And, above and beyond that, an espionage act prosecution would have been shut down fairly quickly in a haze of graymail. The fact that we know as much as we do at the moment about this case is a testment to crafty charging of Libby — and how much more is left behind the obstruction veil is a question I would dearly love to have answered.
thanks, Christy and Cinamonape!
what a great place this is.
I love the knowledge and need it for the impromtu seminars at work.
This Armitage meme is definitely Gooper sand throwing.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 124
christy – yes – i agree – but their ability to present their rehearsed testimony is only as good as the committee members who question them. if taylor had to be questioed by the SJC rather then the HJC it would be a horse of another color.
then again – if conyers allows hank johnson, robt wexler, artur davis & keith ellison (the best lawyers on the committee inmho),to have more time to question whoever is before the committee – then maybe the rehearsed testimony could be penetrated.
Educated Plaintiff @ 135
Although Adam Schiff is the strongest to me, I agree. And 5 minute rounds work for the minority here. Perhaps the formation of a smaller subcommittee and longer rounds would do it.
newtonusr @ 136
yes – i should have included schiff
Educated Plaintiff @ 137
These five would make a helluva sub-subcommittee.
The Houston Chronicle has a good article by Law Professor, David Dow, “Justice Denied,” comparing the Libby treatment to a client of the Professor. More good reading.
Specter knows what the case is about. And while he’s too much of a political coward to take the White House head-on he’s willing to have Fitz do his dirty work for him while he plays dumb.
If Fitzgerald were to testify there would be so many people cheering and applauding him you would never be able to hear his testimony.
Have you all thought about what Fitz might have to say in the opinions Reggie has asked for regarding Scoots supervised time?
What if he were to say, “Let’s see here. I work for Gonzo, The Incompetent” And George Bush, The Lesser. GWB just commuted a sentence in total dissconnect with his policies for everyone else. I guess I should just jump right in with whatever Scoots says as he has better relations with these assholes than I do!”
Any ideas on that?
You’ve got a lot to write about, but I found this WAPO article to have some merit.
So Pelosi needs to recuse herself, right? Or whatever the equivalent is in this case. If conflict of interest is valid, then impeachment of prez/VP can never happen.
No, conflict of interest doesn’t really explain the situation.
If you’ll recall, Pelosi took impeachment off the table before the midterm elections. It was a subtle, calculated ploy to attract enough independent voters who were disgusted with Bush, in order to get control over (at least) the House of Representatives. “Vote for Democrats and we won’t tie up government for the next two years with impeachment proceedings.”
That’s the short, public story.
The other, even less flattering story is that impeachment was a trade-off for getting a historical first: The first woman as Speaker of the House of Representatives. And because a woman is Speaker (and 2nd in the succession line to the presidency), and because there has yet to be a woman as President, and because we’re not talking about impeaching just Bush or just Cheney but both Bush and Cheney, there will be no impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney.
Because the first woman president is going to have to be elected. That’s a historical first that they’re all telling each other in Congress has to happen through a vote of the people.
And so because of Nancy Pelosi getting to be Speaker, we traded away stopping this insanity, impeaching Bush and Cheney.