How exactly was this determined to be true, and by whom?
Posted on 10/25/2005 9:51:05 AM PDT by churchillbuff
It'll hurt like cutting off his right arm, but Dick Cheney has a duty to the presidency to fire his own trusted chief of staff. Here's what's happened that brought about this sad state:
Late last Thursday, March 1 (2001), there appeared yet another witness before the House of Representatives Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.
He came on after the press had tired of listening to former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Bill Clinton close confidant Bruce Lindsey and former presidential counsel Beth Nolan tell how they tried to argue Clinton out of pardoning fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.
The largely inattentive press missed the bigger story of the day.
The name of this witness is I. Lewis Libby, who answers to the nickname "Scooter."
A man of no small stature in Washington, he is chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.
...Over a period of 17 years, when he would weave out of government, Libby represented Rich.
It would be fair to say, as was said of him during the committee hearing, that Libby probably knows more about that tangled case than any man alive.
Wrong Number
On Jan. 22, two days after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, Libby did something quite wrong. He placed an overseas phone call, to Switzerland, to Marc Rich.
He phoned his old client and obvious friend, to offer congratulations on having been pardoned by Clinton – arguably the most-damned pardon ever granted by a president in the nation's history.
Libby's congratulations, as his testimony in the committee-hearing transcript reveals, were offered to a man he considered to be both a traitor and a fugitive from justice.
So what's the big deal? No one was injured – as in "no harm, no foul."
This isn't roundball. This has to do with the proper stewardship of the presidency, the delicacy and transcending importance of which this nation is just now, after eight awful years of Clintonism, only beginning to appreciate.
What's wrong, what's harmful is that if you are entrusted with public office, whether on the local school-board staff or as chief of staff of the vice president of the United States of America, you simply do not do what Libby did.
Marc Rich showed greater sensitivity to that imperative than Libby did.
Staying Out of Trouble
Libby testified that Michael Green, one of Rich's defense counsels, told him that right after the pardon he had taken a thank-you call from the fugitive, who expressed reluctance to phone Libby to state his appreciation for all he had done for him over the years because, as Libby put it, Rich "did not want to get me into any trouble by calling me."
So Libby was obviously aware of the impropriety, now that he was on Cheney's staff, of having any truck with Rich. Yet he walked right over it as if it wasn't even there. He had no hesitancy in placing a return call to Rich.
To what purpose?
In Libby's own words to the committee: "I congratulated him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time."
That's not the character of judgment this nation requires in the running of the office of vice president.
Asked where he made the call, Libby said it was from his home.
Anyone at his level in the White House hierarchy is provided by the government a dedicated, secure "hard line" phone – for official domestic or overseas calls.
If Libby used that line, he was doing something he should not have been doing at taxpayers' expense, thereby making it an implicit official governmental action.
Assume he had the sense of propriety to make the call to Rich in Switzerland on his personal phone line, on his own nickel. In a sense that's even worse.
He Knew Better
It's even worse because it would document that he knew what he was doing was not what he should have been doing now that he was the vice president's chief of staff.
He can rationalize, as he tried to do before the committee, that he was just being his own personal, non-governmental self. He would be engaging in self-deception. When you hold that position you forfeit all license to bifurcate yourself. You are, around the clock, the vice president's chief of staff. Period.
None of that was lost on the Democrats on the committee, who are no doubt already busy compiling talking points for the 2002 congressional elections. Their reaction was but a sample of what Republicans may expect to come.
When Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., tried to get Libby to say whether he regarded the man who was his client, off and on over a period of 17 years, as a traitor for having traded with Iran during the hostage crisis, Libby fish-tailed.
The exasperated Democrat pinned him down: "You can't be half-pregnant, Mr. Libby. Is he or isn't he? . . . Do you consider him a traitor?"
Libby's answer: "Yes."
Kanjorski: "How many traitors to this country do you call up in your official capacity?"
Libby: "I called none, sir."
What About Then?
Kanjorski: "You did on Jan. 22 when the new administration took office and you were chief of staff to the vice president of the United States."
Libby: "Not in my official capacity, sir."
Kanjorski: "Oh, but do you call traitors in your unofficial capacity?"
Libby: "No, sir. I called Mr. Rich to respond to his request."
Kanjorski: "Why would you call a traitor, someone you consider a traitor, after he got a pardon that was a hullabaloo in this country? You can't tell me you didn't know about the reaction to the pardon. . . . Why did you call him?"
Libby: ". . . I had always taken his calls when he was a client of mine. He had been pardoned by the president for those very trades [with Iran, on the basis of which, Libby had just testified, he regarded him as a traitor]. And so I called him."
Kanjorski: "Would you call another traitor in the country again? Would you ever do that?"
Libby: "I don't believe I know any other traitors."
Kanjorski: "Stick around this committee long enough, you may learn something."
Waxman Weighs In
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Henry Waxman of California, couldn't resist getting his oar in the water. He told Libby:
"I don't know what the legal ethics are for representing people you consider to be traitors for 17 years. It's a little puzzling you would call a traitor up and congratulate him on a pardon."
Painful as it is to have to say, Waxman got that right. No chief of staff to any vice president has good cause to be phoning congratulations to traitors, pardoned or not.
And Republicans thought the Clinton pardon issue was theirs to use against Democrats. With friends like Libby, Republicans don't need Democrats for enemies.
Rich can be properly assailed for having trafficked with the enemy. Then why not also the vice president's chief of staff for having trafficked with the trafficker?
Is an attorney who avidly represents over nearly two decades – and then calls up to congratulate – a man he acknowledges to Congress he regards as a fugitive and a traitor of any nobler stature than a fugitive traitor?
What lawyers do when not working in government is represent clients – guilty, innocent or in-between. Without that the justice system wouldn't function.
Ties That Blind
But Libby's ties over the years to this particular client had become so tight they impaired his judgment. They were high in his mind when he phoned Rich. Who's to believe they won't always be, during his membership in the top management of the Bush-Cheney administration and after?
In attempting to excuse his congratulatory call to Rich, Libby said he always took his former client's calls, so it was OK. Does Rich now feel entitled to resume calling? Does Libby still feel obligated to keep on answering?
The vice president does not need diluted loyalty, distracted attention on his staff.
The president does not need this festering scandal thrown back at him.
The country does not need any more Clinton-like carbuncles on the neck of its body politic.
Libby belongs out of public service and back in private practice, where he is clearly more comfortable.
Easier said than done.
Cheney must have come over the years to depend mightily on Libby. Their working relationship may be so accustomed, so easy as to be shorthand. Libby may have become almost a member of the Cheney family. No doubt "Scooter" is a most-likeable chap.
Where would Cheney turn to fill such shoes?
But that's not the point, is it?
Libby told the committee he has recused himself from this issue, to the point of ordering the staff to shield him from the very sight of any paperwork related to Rich.
Un-recuse, Re-recuse
Trouble is, Libby cannot un-recuse himself from what he has recused himself, as when he phoned Rich, and then re-recuse himself again at will or on whim.
Too late, the damage is done.
Should it be left up to Libby to resign?
No, because once he did what he did there was no way he could undo it, not even by resigning.
The only appropriate remedy, for the good of the vice president, for the good of the presidency, is for the vice president to discharge him.
The fact that it would be so painful for Cheney to do is no acceptable reason for not doing it. Indeed, that is all the more reason why he must.
Granted Libby's inexcusable judgment is as nothing compared with the ethical violations so characteristic of Bill Clinton and his flock. But does this president want his administration held to such a low-bar standard as that?
The fact that what Libby has done will invite Clinton-comparison each time it is dredged up in the press is yet further reason not to have that happen.
Is the reason to let Libby go that he is now a political liability rather than a political plus? No, not the overriding reason, though it is undeniably a legitimate factor.
Right and Wrong of It
It is the right thing to do simply because it was the wrong thing for Libby to have done.
Does Cheney have to fire Libby? Of course he doesn't. He can, to mix a couple of biblical metaphors, let the cup pass, wash his hands of the whole thing – if that's what he thinks is the right thing to do.
But if he does that, he will be saying to the world he thinks it is the right thing because what Libby did was the right thing.
Dick Cheney has been around government too long to kid himself into believing that.
Who will even notice if he doesn't fire Libby? Undeniably, not a grand assembly of Americans will know, or care.
But the issue's rightness or wrongness, and the degree, will remain unaffected, whether everyone or no one notices, or cares.
The political reality that Cheney must calculate, however, is the savvy knowledge there is always the chance this may at any time down the road pop up as his worst nightmare come to life.
If Cheney needs no other reason, dismissing Libby will send a clear and certain message to every occupant of an appointed position in this new administration. Better early in an administration than too late.
Best Behavior
As Bush himself stated it, when asked by the press for his advice to relatives who might entertain the notion of influence-peddling a pardon: "Behave yourself."
Had the identical thing occurred during the Clinton presidency, who would like to argue it should have been ignored?
This miserable mess surpasses partisanship, Republican or Democratic. It's to do with America.
Like it or not, this is one of the built-in guarantees of the balancing act that two competing political parties bring to the healthy functioning of the democratic process in this Republic.
Dick Cheney is a decent, honest, dedicated public servant of the highest caliber.
There is only one way he can avoid ever having to wake up to the nightmare: Do the right thing, and do it now.
Not for diminutive half-reasons, but for the only reason that matters: In politics, as in everyday personal life, the right thing to do is always the right thing to do.
It's the right time for "Scooter" to scoot back to private practice again.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is senior editor and a regular columnist for NewsMax.com.
Michael Savage says we're ruled by a "benign oligarchy," with leaders of both parties covering for the others. I don't want to believe that, but then I see Bush Sr. cavorting with Bubba, and Cheney hiring Libby, the lawyer of the scum, Marc Rich, who was scandolously pardoned by Bubba. (And some freepers coming to the defense of Libby!!)
Sad but true. I wonder how many voters will sit out the 2006 and 2008 elections because of this.
Libby is close to a "rat traitor", as you rightly call Rich -- yet you're defending Libby!?! Amazing. Another 'bot.
(Marc) Rich linked to money laundering Washington Times ^ | 6/21/02 | P.K. Semler
Posted on 06/20/2002 11:51:54 PM PDT by kattracks Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
MILAN, Italy — European prosecutors say that documents identifying Marc Rich — the American fugitive who won an 11th-hour pardon from President Clinton — have turned up during a crackdown on money laundering and the Russian mafia. While Mr. Rich has not been named as a suspect, prosecutors do not rule out issuing a subpoena or even an arrest warrant for him as their investigation develops.
Good idea to run everybody out of office who has ever had any connection to Rich and then install Hillary in the next presidential election. Please don't tell me that's not where this is heading or that the Democrats don't have a very old game plan executed in the '70's that they have dusted off and are using once again. You can choose to participate in it if that's your desire just like many Republicans did the first time around. Don't forget to follow the Democrats' message to call your congressman and demand that Bush be impeached so they can judge how well the plan is working.
You're trying to change the subject from Libby's tie to Marc Rich. Does that stink or not? The Republicans are more likely to lose if they give high positions to scum like this -- and you aren't helping the GOP by making excuses for Libby. He should be gone. If he'd never been there, some of the mess they're in now wouldn't be happening.
How exactly was this determined to be true, and by whom?
It sounds like he admitted it to the committee. Read the articles that I have posted, including the one from National Review. They're all in this thread. Also, google the names "Marc Rich" and Libby. There's a lot of stuff, from reputable sources, that show the close ties between these two jerks.
I know - - but since he's the issue of this thread, you're decision to "make a judgement" only about some stupid Dem congressman, has the effect of covering for Libby.
Rush also used to have a problem with druggies and lawyers, but that was before he became a druggie and needed a lawyer.
"The applications (for Pardongate kingpins Marc Rich and Pincus Green) were reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn," wrote the ex-president, "but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official, William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff...." As soon as Clinton's screed hit the newsstands, the Bush White House denied that the Republican lawyers he cited had anything to do with the Rich-Green pardons.
"Fox News Sunday" was among the first to note the Clinton falsehood in the midst of its roundtable debate on the scandal:
"Now one of the other things (Clinton) argues is that a number of Republican attorneys have been involved in this case," observed host Tony Snow.
"He mentions Len Garment, William Bradford Reynolds and also Dick Cheney's chief of staff, 'Scooter' Libby. And the fact is that the White House has already said, 'No, no, no. You've got that completely wrong.'"
"Juliana Glover Weiss has called and said that in fact, Mr. Libby ceased his representation last year and never was involved in the pardon and the other gentlemen have said the same."
. """Libby also said he "quite possibly" would have considered applying for a pardon for Rich had Rich asked him to do so."""
That's a real stellar guy you're sticking up for - that Libby. What a class act!
From Byron York's report, in National Review, March 2001, on the House Committee hearing under Burton: . """Libby also said he "quite possibly" would have considered applying for a pardon for Rich had Rich asked him to do so.""" That's a real stellar guy you're sticking up for - that Libby. What a class act!
My Freeper friend, there is enough information and disinformation on these internet pages to make one go deaf, dumb and blind.
You sound like you are ready to go to the mattresses over this.
Call me when you are locked, loaded, and in the foxhole.
National Review's on-site coverage of the hearing is not disinformation. Read post 31. Nobody denies that Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer. If you do, you live in a self-created fantasy world.
And you're either a troll or dumb enough to play right into the hands of the same people (Hillary) who are executing the impeachment (or resignation) of a Republican president Part II. Maybe you are too young to know the script and need to bone up on Watergate, etc.
Why would anyone care who a lawyer defends when they aren't on the gov't's dime? There's very little $ in defending innocent people, certainly not enough to spread around among all the defense lawyers that currently exist. And what does who Libby works for in private practice have to do with "Plamegate?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.