Well done!
That only took an hour to get an answer to a very simple question.
Inasmuch as you, kabar, have the link to that testimony, why don't you post it?
Posted on 10/25/2005 9:51:05 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Well done!
That only took an hour to get an answer to a very simple question.
Inasmuch as you, kabar, have the link to that testimony, why don't you post it?
Reminds me of the climax of a typical mystery TV show. You know that the detective (or Matlock, or Dr. Mark Sloane) has found the real murderer, when he accused the guy, and the guy says "you can't prove that."
When the Today show asked Hillary about Monica, she said something like, "they won't find any proof of that." I knew then that it was true.
Libby when he hasn't been employed by the government was a lawyer. In this country we believe that even criminals deserve teh right to legal counsel.
It was not inappropriate for Libby to represent the traitor, Mr. Rich in his effort to attain a pardon from Clinton, since he was not part of the administration at the time.
Calling back Rich to congradulate him on getting pardoned isn't inappropriate unless he did it on the government's dime.
I don't believe Rich should have been pardoned, but he had the right to seek a pardon and he had the right to competent legal counsel in that attempt.
Clinton pardoned Rich, not Libby. There's no evidence that Libby is "tight" with Rich, merely that he represented him as a lawyer.
Would you also suggest that any public defender that has represented criminals should be treated as a criminal? Lawyers represent the interests of their clients. That's what they have to do. If they are not allowed to do so, then our legal system collapses because we pre-judge people by who they are able to get to represent them.
As long as Libby remained honest while representing Rich, he was simply doing his job as it should be done. It's not the lawyer's job to judge his clients. It's his job to make sure they have a competent legal defense.
If Libby did something inappropriate while defending Rich, then he should be held accountable for that. However, defending Rich as a lawyer isn't in itself inappropriate.
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.
Is it your contention that Libby did not call Marc Rich and congratulate him on his pardon?
Agreed. But it wasn't "appropriate" for Cheney to hire somebody with such deep Clinton-scum connections, either. Cheney's paying the price for that mistake, now.
Libby was the VP's Chief of Staff. It is not a nine-to-five job. The outcry in Congress on both sides of the aisle, especially the Reps, about Clinton's granting a pardon to Rich was deafening. Clinton even ignored his own staff, including Podesta, who counseled him not to issue the pardon. Obviously, Clinton thought the donations to his library were more important.
Libby made a colossal error of judgment. Clinton latched on to it to defend himself citing Libby's involvement. Libby stopped being Rich's lawyer in the Spring of 2000. There was no reason to maintain a relationship with Rich who even Libby admitted was a traitor. Libby was not a private citizen, but rather, a high level government official. He should have never called Rich back two days after the pardon was granted to congratulate him.
If you click on my link in post #83, you will understand the whole sordid mess. The Justice Department and FBI were absolutely furious about the pardon. Libby added fuel to the fire trying to counter some of the FBI's charges at the Congressional hearing on the Rich pardon. It wouldn't surprise me if some career FBI and Justice types would like nothing more than a little payback for Libby's testimony on Rich. It would be interesting to learn if any of Fitzgerald's fellow DOJ lawyers on the Wilson/Plame affair also worked on the Rich prosecution.
"Agreed. But it wasn't "appropriate" for Cheney to hire somebody with such deep Clinton-scum connections, either. Cheney's paying the price for that mistake, now."
What deep connections? He represented him as a lawyer. How is Cheney paying a high price for this mistake? DO you really think many people really care about this supposed scandal? Despite the press' consistent attacks, they haven't found anything resembling an intentional act to "out" a covert operative in retaliation for Wilson being critical of the administration.
It looks pretty unlikely that anyone in the Bush adminsitration had any idea that Plame was anything but an analyst at the CIA. The person who outted her as a operative was actually Wilson when he assumed that they were punishing him and her. I'm not saying that having it known that she worked for the CIA didn't harm her ability to work as a covert operative, but there doesn't appear to be any attempt to harm her because it dosen't liik like anyone in the administation know she was anything more than an analyst.
Unless Libby released info to the press that he knew was confidential, he did nothing wrong.
Someone should have known that her name should not have been released publicly, and that information should have been passed down clearly and explicitly. Until we know where that broke down, we don't know who screwed up.
Show me some evidence that Libby has done something inappropriate. If you evidence is that he called Rich and said congratualtions, then I'd say he's guilty of being a lawyer with good manners.
Right now it looks like you're attacking someone based on the kind of crap the New York Times calles evidence. Is there something more to this that I'm missing or have we jumped to character assination by loose association?
Not at all. BTW ... thanks for your #85.
I am retired from police work and have dealt with many lawyers and politicians during my career. In fact, a lawyer I hired (and knew well) to get my (already) ex-wife to sign an agreement with regards to my children, wound up taking her to to bed and never even got her to sign it.
He then began sending me bills, which I ignored. As the months went by, he kept sending the bills with added charges tacked on for nonpayment.
When I had enough, I called him advising that I was aware of him screwing my ex, (he was married with children) that I had a copy of the credit card bill from the hotel he screwed her in and that if he did not cease and desist his wife would be the proud owner of copies of it.
Needless to say that was the end of the billing.
No my freeper friend, I understand a bit about lawyers. I just would like to separate the "wheat" from the "chaff".
I read what you posted in #85 and read the same in the article. I will have to find the transcript and let it tell me what I should already have known ... we're screwed!
Thanks
Yes. If Libby and Rich had a strictly business relationship, then it was over in the Spring of 2000. Libby was a high-ranking member of the Bush administration. If his former client was Aldrich Ames, what would you think if he called Ames to congratulate him on his pardon? Libby acknowledged that Rich was a traitor.
You're saying that for being polite he should be canned?
No, he should be canned for poor judgment and creating even the appearance of an impropriety. If you recall, Rich called Libby through an intermediary because he did not want to create a problem for Libby. Libby returned the call directly to Rich. It had more to do with money than politeness.
Do you really think Cheney has an incompetent idiot as a chief of staff? Do you think Libby hasn't proven himself time and time again to be extremely valuable in that role?
I am not attacking Libby's abilities as a lawyer. It has to do with inappropriateness.
You're suggesting that he should be canned because of one phone call of questionable relevance at best?
There are some lines that should not be crossed. Libby crossed one. I watched his testimony on C-SPAN. He enraged Dems and Reps alike with his testimony, which also included his continued defense of Rich.
We need a government led by competent people, not people who happen to not have done anything that other people think is inappropriate in retrospect. This is a bunch of useless political BS that harms our country.
As a retired USG bureaucrat with 36 years of service, I couldn't agree more. What we don't need are these self-pomoting Beltway lawyers who are in politics for their own self-aggrandizement rather than conviction. I have seen enough of them. My daughter has also worked at two high-powered DC law firms. Follow the money.
One polite phone call is not a relationship. Other than possibly some follow-up questions regarding his former representation of Rich, is there any evidence of a relationship?
Libby had ceased being Rich's lawyer over a year prior to the phone call. You can characterize it as being a "polite" phone call, but I see it otherwise, i.e., a lawyer sucking up to an extremely wealthy client who might use his services again. You don't represent someone for 17 years without developing a personal relationship. Libby was so politically tone deaf and oblivious to how his actions might appear, that he made the call at a time when the entire country was outraged by the Rich pardon, even the MSM.
If you want to start demonizing lawyers who represent people without any evidence that they did so in a dishonest manner, you're pretty much making it impossible for people to attain counsel to defend themselves.
It has nothing to do with demonizing lawyers who represent their clients. I understand how our legal system works. My problem with Libby is his lack of judgment and failure to understand that his official position circumscribes his actions. Rich was/is a despicable person and was not worthy of a pardon. He was even less deserving of a congratulatory telephpone call from the current VP's Chief of Staff. It was bad enough that the former President of the US granted him a pardon. Libby's business relationship with Rich ended a year earlier.
Thought you might like to see there was one good man in Sodom.....;))...Cornyn
I just keep reminding myself how afraid I was for my country during the Clinton years. No one could or would stop their madness.
Now Hillary front and center as the next dem. candidate for President.*sigh*
The following link provides the testimony before the House Committee: Text: House Hearing on Clinton's Pardons Libby's testimony is towards the end.
Some excerpts:
WAXMAN: Well, Mr. Libby, it appears that you agree with most of the points that the president made. Let me ask you the bottom-line question.
President Clinton apparently concluded that Mr. Rich had not committed the crimes he had been accused of. Do you agree with this? Do you think that Mr. Rich is a tax fraud and a criminal, or do you agree with President Clinton's assessments of the merits of the case?
LIBBY: I believe, sir, that based on all of the evidence available to defense counsel, the best interpretation of the evidence is that they did not any civil--any tax, even as a civil matter. That would be the interpretation given by the two tax professors.
WAXMAN: And therefore, that there should not have been a criminal liability.
LIBBY: Based on the evidence available to the defense, that would be correct, sir.
WAXMAN: Mr. Libby, according to press reports, you called Mr. Rich on January 22 of this year. Is that accurate?
LIBBY: That's correct, sir. I believe that January 22 is right.
WAXMAN: And where you when you called him?
LIBBY: At home.
WAXMAN: And why did you call him?
LIBBY: He had spoken to Mr. Green (ph), who is a good friend of mine, and he had told Mr. Green (ph), he thanked Mr. Green (ph) for all the work Mr. Green (ph) had done on his case over the years and that he also wished to thank me for the work I had done prior to the pardon on his matters over the years, but that he didn't know if it would be OK for him to call me. He did not want to get me in any trouble by calling me.
And so I thanked Mr. Green (ph) for telling me that and I said I would call Mr. Rich to say it was OK. And I called Mr. Rich and he thanked me for my work on the case. And I congratulated him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time.
KANJORSKI: And you're trying to parcel this down and not give us an opinion. And in fairness as a lawyer and a member of the bar and having worked for this client, did you represent a crook that stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?
Is that what we should conclude from your statement?
LIBBY: No, sir. I believe in all of the evidence I know that there was no tax liability.
KANJORSKI: And do you believe, as a result, the pardon would be warranted insofar as there are no facts that you know of that supports the criminality charged against your former client?
LIBBY: There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns you've been discussing.
KANJORSKI: So that on all of the facts that you know, is the pardon issued by the president justified?
LIBBY: I cannot say whether the pardon is justified because I don't have those facts and that application form.
KANJORSKI: Mr. Libby, I'm not asking to take any other facts than the facts that you have. And we're pretty able up here to understand as a lawyer for a couple of years working for a very wealthy guy and you come to the conclusion with Harvard law professors and Georgetown law professors about a lot of things. And we're going to accept all of what you know, accept nothing of what anybody else knows because obviously you don't know. We're asking an opinion.
I mean I like to see a guy hedge, but that's unreasonable. You either have an opinion or you don't have an opinion. If you don't have an opinion, tell us you don't have an opinion and therefore your client may have been a crook, should have gone to trail, was a fugitive, or do you have a opinion he wasn't?
Do you have an opinion he was a fugitive?
LIBBY: In every common sense term of it, yes, he was a fugitive.
KANJORSKI: OK, do you think he was a fugitive on justifiable charges or was he a fugitive because there was a mistake of the interpretation of the law by the Southern District of New York?
LIBBY: I believe that the Southern District of New York misconstrued the facts in the law, and that looking from all of the evidence available to the defense, he had not violated the tax laws.
KANJORSKI: And was not a fugitive?
LIBBY: No, he was. In every common sense term of the word, he was a fugitive.
WAXMAN: How about in a legal sense?
LIBBY: There is a fugitivity statute which is very complicated. I haven't looked at it in years. It has to do generally with avoiding state process. It wasn't a state process. A very technical matters--I don't recall them after so many years now.
WAXMAN: Let me, before I yield further, of course, you know only knew the information as a defense lawyer for many years, but you knew everything the prosecutors had to say about Mr. Rich and Mr. Green. You've heard their arguments. I assume you also followed the hearing we had three weeks ago, because we had the two prosecutors in here. I know you're busy but you might have read in the newspaper their arguments.
You disagree with them, don't you?
LIBBY: From everything I know, yes, sir.
WAXMAN: At the hearing this committee had several weeks ago, there was considerable discussion about the merits of the Rich case. And I want to read to you some of the statements that were made and ask you about them.
Let me read to you what Representative Shays said at the hearing. Quote: "There are some who believe, and I am one of them, that former President Clinton appears to have pardoned two traitors to their country."
Do you agree with that statement?
LIBBY: As I recall from the snippets I've heard, he was referring to a series of trades that they may have made or business engagements that they may have had, one of which was with Iran, one of which was with Iraq if I recall, South Africa maybe, Russia, something like that.
WAXMAN: Whatever. Do you think that...
LIBBY: I don't have any knowledge about any of those other items. The only one that I've heard about was the transactions with Iran and that was one of the claims in the indictment.
WAXMAN: Well, and you thought the indictment was not justified.
LIBBY: Yes, sir. That was not my portion of the case, but I've always understood from the experts that handled that portion of the case that the Rich companies were allowed to trade with--the Swiss-based Rich companies were allowed to...
WAXMAN: Do you agree with the statement that these two gentlemen were two traitors to this country?
LIBBY: I can understand someone using those terms, sir.
WAXMAN: Do you agree with them?
LIBBY: No, I'm sorry, sir. I was just trying to finish. Trades with Iran during a period when hostages were held, and that was an act that you could consider an act of a traitor.
WAXMAN: That somebody else could consider, but you don't consider it.
LIBBY: I could consider that also, sir.
WAXMAN: You could.
LIBBY: Yes. I did not condone it. I didn't advise it. I don't admire it.
WAXMAN: At the first committee hearing on this pardon a few weeks ago, two of the former federal prosecutors who pursued Mr. Rich, Morris Weinberg and Martin Auerbach, testified. Mr. Auerbach said, "The merits in the Rich case were unquestionably in the government's favor." Do you agree with that statement?
LIBBY: Not from what I know, sir.
WAXMAN: In their joint written testimonies to the committee, the prosecutors stated that in December 1981 it was apparent that they had uncovered, at that time, the biggest tax fraud in history. Do you agree with that statement?
LIBBY: Not from what I know, sir
WAXMAN: Let me yield to Mr. Cummings.
CUMMINGS: I just have a few questions and I'll yield back.
Mr. Libby, I'm not going to ask you whether you thought the pardon should be granted because I think you pretty much answered it already. I mean, I'm just listening to what you said. But let me ask you these questions.
Do you believe that crimes were committed by these two gentlemen?
LIBBY: Sir, I only know the facts related to this particular indictment.
CUMMINGS: Yes. I'm talking about with regard to this indictment, which is the subject of this pardon.
LIBBY: I do not believe that these two gentlemen, based on all the evidence available to me, were guilty of the charges for which they were indicted.
KANJORSKI: OK. But you did say something that I want to go back, and let me get this in context now. You represented Mr. Rich from what period of time until which period of time?
LIBBY: From spring of 1985 until fall probably or end of summer of 1989. Not continuously, of course, but periodically. And from 1993, after leaving the government, some period after leaving the government, you know, with the matter that was under consideration, until about 1995. It was then inactive. And I represented him again in connection with Mr. Quinn's approach to the Southern District and the Department of Justice sometime in 1999, and that effort ended sometime around spring of 2000.
KANJORSKI: '99 until the end of 2000 approximately.
Now, at what period of time and what information that came to your attention that you made the conclusion, both legally and otherwise, that he was a traitor?
LIBBY: Sir, what I said is that I can understand someone viewing the evidence that he traded with Iran as a traitor.
KANJORSKI: The question wasn't put that way, Mr. Libby.
LIBBY: I'm sorry.
KANJORSKI: The question was, do you consider Mr. Rich a traitor?
LIBBY: On that trade, I can understand that, yes, sir.
KANJORSKI: No, I didn't ask you if you can understand.
LIBBY: Yes, sir, I do not condone...
KANJORSKI: Mr. Libby, do you consider him a traitor or don't you? I mean, it's just very straightforward. If you don't consider him a traitor, say you don't. If you do, say you do.
LIBBY: I would not have made that trade. You could apply the traitor to it.
KANJORSKI: Fine. Do you consider him, for having made that trade, a traitor?
LIBBY: Sir, it's not a word I would use, but I accept it.
KANJORSKI: You can't be half-pregnant, Mr. Libby, he is or he isn't. It seems to be very simple. Is he or isn't he? You said before you consider him a traitor. Is that correct, what I heard?
LIBBY: I would say yes.
KANJORSKI: Right. And what I'm interested in is when did you consider him a traitor? When did you get that information, become aware of that information to draw that conclusion personally?
LIBBY: The information is in the indictment which was issued in 1983, something like that.
KANJORSKI: So for this period, the last 17 years, you've considered this client of yours a traitor.
LIBBY: Sir, my understanding is that the conduct in which he engaged was not illegal, but I agree with the description that you could consider him a traitor for trading with Iran during that period.
KANJORSKI: Not that I could consider him. Do you consider him a traitor?
LIBBY: Yes.
KANJORSKI: How many traitors to this country do you call up in your official capacity?
LIBBY: I called none, sir.
KANJORSKI: You did on January 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 you do 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, somebody 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. So you knew that there was a hullabaloo in the country about the pardon. You, in your own mind, consider him a traitor. Why did you call him?
LIBBY: Mr. Rich is a former client. I believed he was not guilty of those things of which he was charged, based on the evidence available to me. He had called Mr. Green to say that he wished to call me and thank me for my services. I had always taken his calls when he was a client of mine. He had been pardoned by the president for those very trades. And so I called him.
KANJORSKI: Would you call another traitor in the country again? Would you ever do that?
LIBBY: Don't believe I know any other traitors.
KANJORSKI: Stick around this committee long enough you may learn something.
I have not been following the Marc Rich story.
But venal treason, like child molesting and rape, is not a crime that can be romanticized. People don't brag about their connections to such people - like they might about knowing bank robbers or assassins - and for good reason.
Similarly, pardons - Presidential or otherwise - often have certain stink about them. Rectifying a gross miscarriage of justice is something everyone can accept but its all downhill from there. Overriding interests of society or the state still leave the recipient with a foul smell.
This Libby is bad news. Cheney should have heeded warnings not to hire him.
And I care what you think because ??????????
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.