Posted on 11/03/2005 12:18:18 AM PST by ajolympian2004
Did Scooter Libby worked for Marc Rich? Yes.
Did Scooter Libby congratulate Rich on his pardon from Clinton in 2001? Yes.
Did Scooter Libby receive $2,000,000 in legal fees from Rich? Yes.
Wow.
GO here to download and view the video:
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/11/02/richlibbyconnection/ (windows media player)
Tell us what the video says. This is a tease story without much content.
I can't watch it here from work. It was reported on Fox News. Looking for the story there. The comments under the graphic are those of Ian Scwartz of Political Teen.
If this is true the proverbial "fan" was just obliterated!
This video is from the O'Reilly Factor yesterday (Wednesday 11/2).
Just beautiful... the Vice President's chief of staff worked for Marc Rich, a borderline 'traitor' to our country. Just bleeping beautiful...
The question is whether Libby just handled a single case or was he on retainer to Marc Rich?
Since Libby was a high profile DC attorney, he probably had a few undesirable clients as well as quite a few upstanding ones.
That said, it was a poor choice for Cheney to keep him on staff, given Libby's past professional relationship with such a notorious character as Marc Rich. But that is a political decision, not an ethical breach.
Yes, a very poor political decision indeed and quite embarrassing for VP Dick Cheney, IMHO.
Interesting dynamic on whether the MSM will even mention this now that they are in full defense posture in order to protect the Clintons from any negative stories as Hillary is preparing to run.
Do we potentially hurt the Clintons by bringing up Marc Rich again? Or embarrass Dick Cheney?
Neither can his failed novel The Apprentice which is set in a remote Japanese province in the winter of 1903.
Libby does not shy from the scatological. The narrative makes generous mention of lice, snot, drunkenness, bad breath, torture, urine, “turds,” armpits, arm hair, neck hair, pubic hair, pus, boils, and blood (regular and menstrual). One passage goes, “At length he walked around to the deer’s head and, reaching into his pants, struggled for a moment and then pulled out his penis. He began to piss in the snow just in front of the deer’s nostrils.”
Homoeroticism and incest also figure as themes. The main female character, Yukiko, draws hair on the “mound” of a little girl. The brothers of a dead samurai have sex with his daughter. Many things glisten (mouths, hair, evergreens), quiver (a “pink underlip,” arm muscles, legs), and are sniffed (floorboards, sheets, fingers). The cast includes a dwarf, and an “assistant headman” who comes to restore order after a crime at the inn.
When it comes to depicting scenes of romance, however, Libby can evoke a sort of musty sweetness; while one critic deemed “The Apprentice” “reminiscent of Rembrandt,” certain passages can better be described as reminiscent of Penthouse Forum. There is, for example, Yukiko’s seduction of the inexperienced apprentice:
He could feel her heart beneath his hands. He moved his hands slowly lower still and she arched her back to help him and her lower leg came against his. He held her breasts in his hands. Oddly, he thought, the lower one might be larger. . . . One of her breasts now hung loosely in his hand near his face and he knew not how best to touch her.
Other sex scenes are less conventional. Where his Republican predecessors can seem embarrassingly awkward—the written equivalent of trying to cop a feel while pinning on a corsage—Libby is unabashed:
At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.
And, finally:
He asked if they should f@ck the deer.
And the answer was "yes".
Not exactly the type of novel you would want on your child's summer reading list.
Jim Pinkerton has been excellent on this connection between Libby and Rich.
He has written a few columns and appeared on Fox.
All I can say is that anyone involved with Marc Rich in anyway should never ever be welcomed into a Republican administration. This political decision to appoint Scooter Libby as his chief-of-staff is a total embarrassment for VP Dick Cheney, IMHO. I could honestly care less what his reasoning was for hiring Libby.
That Scooter was one of Rich's attorneys was one of the talking points about him not being a smear monger, and him not being stupid.
But to think that this is startling is a Farce. After all he is a lawyer. He just found a place of prominence under cheney who figured he was a good guy, which I find impossible, since he is a lawyer. The difference between a whore and a lawyer, is that a whore won't get into bed with EVERYBODY that crosses their path.
But to think that this is startling is a Farce. After all he is a lawyer. He just found a place of prominence under cheney who figured he was a good guy, which I find impossible, since he is a lawyer. The difference between a whore and a lawyer, is that a whore won't get into bed with EVERYBODY that crosses their path.
After finding out about this earlier this morning I have absolutley ZERO trust in Scooter Libby. It's good that he's gone so President Bush can hopefully move forward with the nation's business.
"border line traitor"? He profited from trading with and enriching Iran while they held American hostages and chanted "Death to America". What does a person have to do to be more than a borderline traitor?
After reading the review of that book, the man needs some professional help.
Ok, "traitor", then. I am not well versed in every detail regarding Marc Rich, so I left a sliver of leeway.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Lynne Cheney entertain Chief of Staff for the Vice President Lewis Libby (left) and his wife Harriet Grant (second on right---in brown top, black pants) and former Vice President Dan Quayle (right) and his wife Marilyn Quayle (second on left) in the first floor library at the Naval Observatory Dec. 4, 2001.
Libby's spouse is Harriet Grant, a Democrat, who was General Counsel to the Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by Joe Biden. Probably part of the Democrat attack machine that slimed Clarence Thomas during his nomination hearings. The Libby's dinnertime conversation must have been interesting. It's not at all reassuring to authentic conservatives that Libby and spouse were hostile to the social conservative agenda, while Libby was holding power in a conservative admin.
Libby and spouse would never, ever deign to consort with the rabble----rabble like pro-lifers, the no gay marriage crowd, churchgoers, Bible believers, Ten Commandments adherents. You know......the 62 million American values voters who voted for Bush.
Notice how this type has a disconcerting way of popping up whenever a conservative president takes office. They grab whatever top positions they can get their hands on, ones that have veto power over policy-making decisions. Once they get the power, they run off and play in their natural habitat, with the liberal crowd.
Libby represented Marc Rich, one of the most notorious organized crime figures in the world, the man who renounced his American citizenship to evade prosecution, and while on the run, systematically looted post-Soviet Russia and was buddies with the notorious oligarchs in corrupt deals.
Libby's $2M legal defense of Rich paid off with a pardon for Rich in the midnight hours of the Clinton Administration.
And yet, within hours, Libby immediately moved into the crucial position of chief-of-staff to Vice-President Cheney, and admitted he called Rich to congratulate him on the pardon. Rich must have been gratified to know he had a friend smack dab in the corridors of power.
Having a foot in both political camps, although totally unprincipled, is very handy to push a hidden agenda.
Even scarier, Libby, embedded as Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, was a sub rosa power in shaping the Bush administration's policies and helped build the case for the Iraq invasion. A "specialist" in national security, Libby had logged long hours in his office near the West Wing of the White House, steeping himself in subjects like "counterterrorism, bioweapons defense and energy policy."
Libby held three titles: (1) chief of staff, (2) national security adviser to the vice president, and (3) assistant to President George W. Bush -- a sign of his broad influence.
Looks like, for some, Libby's links to Marc Rich made him Most Likely to Succeed, enhanced his job prospects, and made Libby largely immune to criticism.
American Prospect magazine revealed in August 2005 that Libby had testified that he met with NY Times reporter, Judith Miller, on July 8, 2003 and discussed Plame with her at that time. Miller was jailed on 6 July 2005 for contempt of court after refusing to testify to the grand jury about this meeting despite a signed blanket waiver from Libby allowing journalists to discuss their conversations.
Miller has argued that Libby's waiver to all journalists may well have been coerced and that she would only testify if given an individual waiver, which Miller received while serving her sentence.
The waiver was offered "voluntarily and personally" by Libby, accompanied by his letter which has raised eyebrows because of Libby's hinting as to what he expects from her testimony, and a poetic and cryptic ending which has been the subject of much speculation.
Libby: "As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call......
"You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover -- Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers. With admiration, Scooter Libby." [Emphasis added.]
====================================================
Sure doesn't sound like something a conservative would write, now does it? And don't you just love Libby's gratuitous reference to the "Iranaian nuclear program." Clearly Libby was setting Miller up to push his agenda. Talk about agitprop. Guy's a master proselytizer.
Question: Did Libby tell President Bush about "his" plans before he told Miller, and the media?
Back in 2001, the Burton committee was supposedly jolted when Democrats called Libby, vice president Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to the witness stand regarding the catastrophic last-minute Clinton pardon of Marc Rich. Libby testified that not only did he approve of the pardon, within hours, as the Bush admin took over, Libby actually called Rich to offer his congratulations the moment he heard the news.
Not exactly something a true blue conservative would do, is it? And obviously, Libby's defense of the pardon nicely exonerated Clinton. Makes you wonder which side this guy is on.
I guess Marc Rich must have been gratified to know he had a "friend" in the new Bush administration, right smack dab in the VP's office.
Having a foot in both political camps, although totally unprincipled, is so handy, especially if you are a traitor and a convicted tax cheat. Shucks, Rich must be really peeved that Libby got indicted, and is gone from the WH.
OTOH, knowing Rich's friend in the Bush administration is gone sure makes authentic, true blue conservatives feel really good.
Most importantly, we need to determine how badly Libby hurt President Bush.
Hmmmmm. Why am I not surprised that certain "factions" are now attacking a loyal Bush team member and the right-hand man to Dick Cheney, before he has even had a chance to defend himself in court. My my how quickly the worms turn. Especially when a Jewish connection can be made...eh? It's all about the Jews, is it?
The amazing corrollary of this story--to me, at least--is that anyone even remotely connected (professionally or otherwise) with the conservative base might not have a light go off before writing such garbage---you know the, "Hey, I wonder if this will be good for my political/public service career."
IOW, this garbage is so natural to them, they seem oblivious to how it might be received and how it might reflect upon them in the political arena.
Someone is channeling LarryLied. LOL...
YOur point about the LSM in full-court press to protect the Clintons from any "recovered memories" on the part of the public is well-taken.
That's exactly why, if Libby indeed has such nefarious Clinton connections, they need to be shouted from the rooftops every time the Rats bring him up.
Nice of you people to do the Democrats dirty work for them. Maybe you get a gig in the Fiztmas office...
ping
ping a ling....
Reid the Wimp (gag). Although I agree with your premise that Libby was not the one they intended to throw off the lifeboat. That idiotic waiver note he wrote to Miller may have tipped him to the leaky end of the boat.
Excerpt from Libby's book (barf and hurl).
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.
From Publishers Weekly
"Although set in Japan in 1903, Libby's first novel avoids the exoticism and antiquarianism of James Clavell and sets its own tightly dreamlike tone. Setsuo, apprentice innkeeper at an isolated mountain hostel in Northern Japan, finds himself marooned with a dubious cast of travelers during a blizzard. His youthful naivete unfortunately draws him not only to a mysterious young woman with a band of itinerant performers but also to a half-frozen and half-crazed visitor. When this stranger flees back into the storm, Setsuo and another guest separately pursue him, leading to robbery and murder. With rumors of political intrigue enveloping the action and the apprentice in possession of a Macguffin as enigmatic as a haiku image, Libby maintains a sense of mystery and claustrophobia through pared-down prose and minimalist characterization. Setsuo's love interest, for instance, is simply the "girl in the cloak of yellow fur" for much of the novel. Even after he learns her name is Yukiko, her actions, history and motives remain ambiguous to the end. Spare and muted, Libby's debut has distilled his diplomatic experiences in Japan with the U.S. State and Defense Departments into a subtle, if sometimes attenuated, story of innocence and temptation halfway across the world and a century ago."
I have maintained all along on other threads about this subject, that the indictment of Libby was payback by the Justice Department (including the FBI), for Libby's congratulatory phone call to Rich on January 22, 2001 and his defense of Rich during the House hearings. The fact that Fitzgerald was deputy to Mary Jo White during the prosecution of Libby (even though Fitz may not have worked on the case) is relevant. Payback is a bitch.
Thankfully only a few here, a very few, (you can count them on one hand) have chosen to turn on Mr. Libby and act as sockpuppets for the Daily Kos crowd. Always a few rotten apples...:)
I am not supporting Libby's indictment by Fitzgerald, but I am not a big Scooter Libby fan. His testimony before the House and his congratulatory phone call to Rich on January 22, while Libby was the VP's Chief of Staff demonstrated poor judgment at the very least. He served the WH poorly.
I didn't turn on Libby recently. I detested him after watching his March 2001 testimony on C-SPAN. To me, he is part of the pack of jackel lawyers that inhabit the Beltway and feed on the political carrion. They are loyal to no one except the almighty buck.
Get your barf bag, and your blue pencil, ready----excerpt from Libby's book at post #9.
Do we potentially hurt the Clintons by bringing up Marc Rich again? Or embarrass Dick Cheney?
That's the kind of dilemma that keeps Qaiti Khouriq up at night, weeping in frustration. But the media types usually find a way around such situations. For example, in this case Qaiti could describe the links between Libby & Rich, Rich's crimes, etc., then show a picture of GWB on the screen and darkly state that "Rich was pardoned by the President on January 20, 2001, the very first day Mr. Bush was in office."
Factually correct, completely misleading, and no mention of Clinton at all. Man, I should have a job writing for the MSM...
Not particularly surprised.
A VERY, VERY poor political decision blurring dangerously close to an ethical breach, IMO. < / disgusted >
BTW, if he ever gets in trouble, don't forget Ted Olson is made of the same cloth.
Libby in fact acted admirably, in defending the Bush administration against the lies told by Joe Wilson. He has shown far more loyalty than the little cabal on this thread, which is attacking him a la DU or Daily Kos. Attacking him for a book they haven't read, of all petty things..
Good point. We'll all need to duck and cover, and nobody will be spared, not even the lovely Barbara Olson...
Wow, nice post, kabar. So you really think Libby's indictment is payback by Justice & the FBI? My head is spinning...
Just curious, do you suspect Libby has helped hurt the Bush administration in a traitorous way? And do you have a theory of why Karl Rove's atty got Fitzgerald to back off and not indict him?
Libby was behind the scenes discussing the matter with reporters. If his indictment is any measure, he wasn't very effective in defending the administration. Now he has become the story.
If citing Libby's own words and actions concerning the Rich pardon is attacking him, I plead guilty. How do you view his congratulatory telephone call to Rich on his pardon? On the content of his remarks to the House on Rich's guilt?
Yes, if not consciously, at least subconsciously. If you read Libby's testimony before the House, he essentially says that the USG had no real case and he agreed with Clinton's 6 reasons for why he gave Rich a pardon. If I were in the Justice Department, I would not be a happy camper after trying to nail this fugitive for 17 years. Here you had the VP's COS calling Rich to congratulate him and then a month later defending the pardon. Even Podesta testified that he recommended against giving Rich the pardon.
Just curious, do you suspect Libby has helped hurt the Bush administration in a traitorous way?
No.
And do you have a theory of why Karl Rove's atty got Fitzgerald to back off and not indict him?
Rove probably told the truth. Since Fitzgerald had no case under the Espionage and Intelligence Identity Acts, the only thing Fitzgerald could nail him on is perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice. There was no there there.
One could posit that they have nailed Libby so they can flip him later to get Rove, VP, and then the President. The old Watergate playbook. It's not the crime but the cover-up. I don't think that will happen.
Is Scooter Libby disabled? I saw a photo of him on crutches and didn't know if it was a permanent condition.
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.
Apparently Bush and Cheney weren't bothered by this, and unless you think they are both fools, I don't get your point.
The indictment of Libby is ridiculous. A desperate move by a special prosecutor who needs something to show for a year and a half of digging.
As SJackson pointed out, if you attack Libby for having had Marc Rich as a client, you would have to make the same case against Ted Olson, for taking on Pollard as a client. Would you do so if Olson was indicted?
how did this man get to be Cheney's Chief of Staff?
why are Clinton and Bush 1 such pals?
do we really have two political parties?
or is this some elaborate charade?
Probably. GWB is most likely a Democrat mole, and his ultimate goal is to help elect Hillary in 2008. Glad we go that all figured out...:)
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.
Rich stopped being Libby's client in the Spring 2000. There was no longer a business relationship. If you recall, the country was in an uproar over the Rich pardon. Clinton was criticized roundly by everyone including members of his own party, the MSM, and the public at large. In the midst of all of this political din, Libby calls Rich to congratulate him and defends him before a Congressional committee.
I can only think of one reason for this, i.e., possible future, lucrative business from a former wealthy client. If Libby truly believed that Rich was a traitor, as he testified before the House, why would he, given his official, high-level position in the USG, call a traitor to congratulate him? I question Libby's judgment and political tin ear.
Apparently Bush and Cheney weren't bothered by this, and unless you think they are both fools, I don't get your point.
Cheney should have been concerned about it. Substitute the name John Gotti for March Rich and tell me that you would not have a problem with Libby's actions if Clinton had pardoned Gotti.
The indictment of Libby is ridiculous. A desperate move by a special prosecutor who needs something to show for a year and a half of digging.
Libby made the indictment possible through ill-advised statements. He was trying to be too clever by half.
As SJackson pointed out, if you attack Libby for having had Marc Rich as a client, you would have to make the same case against Ted Olson, for taking on Pollard as a client. Would you do so if Olson was indicted?
I have no problem with lawyers taking on unpopular clients and defending them to the best of their ability. That's the way our justice system works. But business is business. If Pollard was granted a pardon, I would offer the same criticism of Olson if he called Pollard up in Israel to congratulate him while Olson was Solicitor General of the United States.
Sounds like Scooter wrote a perverted book, "The Apprentice." I learn the unexpected from reading on FR. Thanks for the info.
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.