January 30, 2008 12:50 PM
Daniel Schorr Predicts Bush Will Pardon Telcom Companies
NPR's All Things Considered:
In his State of the Union address, President Bush asserted "a solemn duty to prevent the terrorists carrying out their plans." And that, he said, meant liability protection for companies that have cooperated with the eavesdropping program. Well, I can imagine Mr. Bush, if nothing else avails, issuing a blanket pardon for phone companies that may have broken the law. I can see these backstage battles spinning on for the rest of the President's term. Listen...
He will and the Dems will go "bleat, bleat"
Does the presidential pardon extend to civil liability? I thought it was only for criminal charges.
I believe it, E
Well, this means one of two things
1. Either Mr. Schorr is giving Booosh some interesting food for thought
or
2. Mr. Schorr will have an unfortunate accident sometime in the near future
If Bush doesn't pardon them, the next Prez will. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and it's amazing what Presidents do. Even when Clinton left office, some of the people he pardoned made even his own party go, huh? $10 says the next Prez will grab hold of all these new ideas and powers, and does the same things. Maybe a little sneakier, but they will. Why else do rich people run for Prez if not for the power? Sure isn't the money.
Yeah, how can there be a pardon with no trial?
Isn't that sort of like the president pardoning a murderer before the murderer is found guilty?
Well I'm not pardoning him for making me late for work this morning. His f’ing motorcade completely stopped rush hour traffic on I15 in Vegas just so hew could speak to a private think tank in Summerlin. (I’m sorry to say the chief principle of our company is attending) I guess when you piss off as many people as he has you need to stop entire cities just so you can safely travel.
As others have suggested, there is no pardon for civil liability. That's why Bush is going nuts trying to get the law changed.
alameda @ 2:
Think you are right!
But that never stopped the Imperial president before, did it?
alameda @ 2:
Will some lawyer here please weigh in on this?
If that happens, and face facts it probably will, the tiny little bit of solace/dreaming we can take is that, starting in late January of 2009, private citizen Bush should have every single one of his conversations recorded and forever preserved by the telcoms. He gets on the phone at 9:32pm and tells someone that he sh!t a piece of corn he doesn't remember eating, I want everyone at Verizon to know about it by 9:33pm. Not only that, but wherever he goes, "volunteers" should follow him with their cellphones on speaker phone, shouting out questions, getting close enough to record his conversations at restaurants...use amplifiers if you're too far away to hear him, I mean it IS for the good of the nation, and if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear, right? Right? And it's not YOUR fault he's talking in public "loud enough" for you to get it on your phone when you're trying to leave yourself a reminder on your home answering machine to buy some milk & Taliban-related accessories, and hey, did I just say Taliban? Damn, NOW my conversatoins are going to be preserved by the telcoms, and coincidentally, I got the President nearby talking about how much he wants to give his Spaghetti Factory waitress a good ol' bronski!
And then when this spoiled li'l pu$sy of a momma's boy starts complaining about how everyone's all up in his bidness, and it ain't fair cuz he's not the Presnit no more, Obama or Hillary can pardon the telcoms. Again.
Schedenfreude...it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Don't you feel good as an American that our Govt. took the time to impeach Bill Clinton because he lied about fucking a fat girl?
You know if Ken Lay hadn't kicked the bucket, he'd be first in line for a pardon, too.
But I think there has to be an indictment for there to be a pardon.
Can a prez pardon someone who has not been convicted yet?
Considering the complete and utter contempt shown for the judiciary, the constitution and the rule of law by the Republicans in Congress and the White House over the last 7 years of the occupation, I'd expect nothing else in the last days of this criminal administration.
Hmm. As noted by others above, I don't think he can do that. That doesn't mean he won't try!
Bush will provide good reasons with his pardons, why this waving of the wand power, should be curtailed.
Bush IS the reason why pardons should be extremely limited and perhaps subject to Congressional and/or judicial oversight.
Bit NOLA @ 17:
Congressional and/or judicial oversight? How 20th century of you.
Speaking of pardons, two questions:
· Who gets your vote for most likely to receive a Presidential pardon on or before 20 January 2009?
· What can the citizens of the United States of America do to ensure justice is merited out to the individuals in the Bush Administration who have violated the law?
My five-pick for question one are:
· George W. Bush
· Richard B. Cheney,
· Alberto R. Gonzales
· David S. Addington
· I. Lewis Libby
And question two, I don't have an answer.
Gregg @ 14:
Shadowgm @ 13:
No
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.
how can you pardon an entire company? i thought it only extended to people, and furthermore only to criminal charges, not retroactive immunity..
hell, if he could do that, couldnt he pardon everyone in blackwater, the military, and his administration?
Can a president grant a civil pardon, or only criminal?
slappy magoo @ 11:
mr. speaker, i stand in strong support of this amendment.
Shadowgm @ 13:
If you believe that Ken Lay is really dead. I think he's probably had some cosmetic surgery and is living well somewhere in South America or wherever they're hiding the war criminals these days.
In the end, even with the best prosecution our govt can produce, it is likely very little will happen to them even if convicted on all possible charges or civil damages. Verizon just handed out phone cards to pay damages in their class-action suit (just what you want from someone that hurts you-more of the same).
The best thing that can come of this is further media exposure, additional public awareness and perhaps a marketplace rise for the group of better-behaved telcom competitors like Qwest or Credo.
Ah, so this is what they meant when they said they'd be "restoring honor and integrity" to the White House.
I see.
Ford's pardon of Nixon was when oversight of pardons should have become an issue.
W will definitely raise the bar at the end of his sordid little run.
A pardon is for criminal charges only.
I've always thought that all along. Dead my ass.
We now return you to the original thread.
From what I read, Presidents Pardons can only go to a person or a group of persons that have been convicted of a crime. It didn't mention companies, but I'm not a attorney.
Goggle: U S Presidential Pardons, Wikipedia or go read;
//legal-dictionary.thefreedomdictionary.com/Presidential+pardon
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm
Lists presidential pardons, by quantity, and by circumstances. Interesting site.
jeeze louise, it's not bad enough presidents can pardon drug kings, felons, and other assorted crooks and liars. Now, entire corporations can get pardons. Oh, that's right, I forgot. Corporations, according to the SCOTUS, have the same rights as individuals. Money, after all, is free speech.
While a pardon will not remove civil liability (linky), civil cases don't have the same subpoena powers, so the thing that Bush is really worried about is mostly taken care of.
I agree with the prediction that he'll do it.
VietVet8666 @ 10:
I'm a lawyer. The presidential pardon power only applies to offenses against the federal government. Therefore he can't issue a pardon for civil liability. He can grant a pardon to any individual or corporation, whether indicted, charged or not, for any offense against the federal government.
I don't expect there will be any consequences for the Telecoms regardless of what happens with the FISA legislation. But I do like the idea that Bush will be forced to personally -- and publicly -- intercede on behalf of the corporate lawbreakers.
This administration has clearly demonstrated who it is for, and who it protects—the average American does not stand a chance, but will receive the bill to pay...American justice at its finest.
Chris from Maine @ 21:
Don't you remember? Corporations are people, even more so than us...
As soon as I heard him say it I knew it was true. That's what Bush will do.
Common sense tells you that he has to pardon them. He can't take a chance on them telling about (naming) the government officials who gave them the authorization. The trail to Bush, Cheney, etc., will be muddled forever. People will truly try and put these people out of their minds, although they do have almost a year to drive this country further into oblivion.
It won't get to that point, the Dem's will cave and Bush will get what he wants. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
ConcernedCanuck @ 5:
It is attitudes like yours that propagate the rampant apathy that abounds in this developing fascist state! Might I suggest an enima to loosen up a little.
Only $10.00? As sure as you sound, you'd think the numbers would have been higher!
Bush will pardon all of his Administration and the criminal GOP friends, then Cheney will pardon Bush for his crimes. Remember Cheney is both President and VP. There aren't many Gerald Fords left in the Republican Party who will out right committ open crimes and act like their saints. Ford was mild mannered and like able but he put the Party first and the country second. Only to live and see what his decision did as Cheney used the Nixon play book but up dated it. Ford in trying to make peace with God before leaving this earth told the truth, that he sould no not pardon Nixon. Cheney has built a complete Govenment lined with Corrupt Loyal Criminal Followers. Even the Supreme Court is stacked with Corrupt Loyal Justices who follow the Criminal Policy of the White House. Now that Bush/Cheney know there is no Justice System and they have weaken the Constitution all their followers will be pardoned as the law of our current Dictators George/Dick, not in that order.
Richard @ 34:
Yeah , but you know that the telecom companies will take any civil liability judgement against them to the SCOTUS , where the Cancervative morons will side with them.
JTM @ 33:
You're exactly right on pardons not removing civil liability. However, subpoenas in a civil context are just as powerful as those in a criminal one, in fact, probably more so. Criminal subpoenas are limited to relevant testimony/materials; civil subpoenas used in discovery (where each side requests info from the other) are much broader in scope because the limitation is not relevance. It includes any testimony/materials which are reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence.
That will be $500 please :)
Jackie @ 42:
I believe you are absolutely correct. Shall we take front row seat and start a betting pool like ConcernedCanuck suggests? Or, shall we do something to prevent these narcisistic, ill willed, reptilian minded, cowards from sucking the last vestige of hope from the American soul? Sounds good...doesn't it? But Nah, we'll just sit back with our muti-function remote controls and bitch until we have to get up for the NSA as they run a metal detector over our lazyboy's. All because the prez is scared shitless we'll find out what he and mister cheney have been doing behind closed doors for 8 years! Ah, what the hell who needs America afterall.
The trail won't just be muddied. They and the millions they've screwed the taxpayers out of will vanish in a cloud of smoke.
MCMetal @ 43:
I don't think the telecoms want it to get that far. They've got secrets to hide, and that means immunity before the judges force them to cough up the documents.
Lawyer @ 44:
The point of all this is to protect HIMSELF. He doesn't give a rats ass about the telecoms, except for the path they will pave to his doorstep. The pardons will help obstruct that path. Then the telecoms can settle or drag the civil out til no one remembers.
He'll pardon them so that while civil cases can go to court, his exec buddies won't go to prison for tens of thousands of counts of civil liberties infringements (assuming they would anyways). Also, these are corporations, so let's say the total suits amount to some asininely high number (a bajillion dollars). The top execs exercise their multi-million dollar options plans, take the money and run while still protected by being an incorporated company.
ConcernedCanuck @ 31:
thanx for the post. Interesting statistics.
Two things jump out on that list.
1: How the vast majority of pardons are granted by dems or soft repubs, most undoubtably (or hopefully?) to free those wrongly convicted.
2: How bush sr, stands out as the modern prez with the fewest pardons. Which brings up a point that always incurs the wrath of my fellow liberals; that Bush sr, despite how corrupt his family, his cronys, his policies, his ideas, his weak leadership, etc, may have been our best modern president in terms of staying within the job description as the constitution intended and was decent on foreign policy too. And yet he will go down in history as one of the most ineffective, and someone I would have never supported.
After W, Reagan, Nixon and Clinton, I'll gladly take the "ineffective" presidencies of Carter and Bush sr.
Good to know that Dan Schorr is still alive!
I love Daniel Shorr--90+ years old and bringing new meaning to "sharp as a tack" everyday.
ShouldBeWorking @ 49:
I believe you are being extremely optimistic and naive. Your missing several parts in this scenario. First you are missing the part where those of us notice that by these actions our first amendement rights have been blotted from the constitution, and directly after that our 4th amendement rights. You also missed the part where the executive branch assumes full control of constitutional interpretation and more or less does whatever it wants...forever (not that it doesn't do this now). I don't see these bullies stepping down from anywhere. I see them imbedding themselves under the cover and guise of fear and governemnt protection. Infringing then becomes a hobby, and the rest of the story begins with the first chapter of "1984"...
If the President can't in fact pardon a company, he certainly can pardon the decision makers who allowed this program to go through. Wouldn't the decision makers have to be convicted before he can pardon them and can a criminal President really pardon his accomplices?
What's interesting is how Bush signaled that he was going to throw down with the telecoms before he was even elected.
AF
Anacher Forester @ 54:
Accomplices of what? The Dems nor anyone else have not so much as tapped huim on the shoulder about anything he has done! I am inclined to believe at this point that everybody is too busy counting the days until the end of this presidency. They have lost sight of the "ball". I did that once...I ended up with a black eye!
you don't have to have esp to figure that one out.
Chip @ 41:
Might I suggest a history book.
Gregg @ 50:
LOL...too true...I was surprised the number of pardons by FDR. I never read the details, but wow for pardons.
I disagree that a pardon will mean much. The pardon only extends to offenses against the United States, and is not relevant when there are civil issues, or offenses against States' citizens rights.
Article II, Section 2
Pardon wouldn't affect the ongoing state-level civil litigation: These have been brought by the State AG's, and are not within the scope of the President's power to pardon. Hence, it appears the real concern is that the State AGs will uncover other evidence that would also be outside the President's pardon power: Evidence that illegally captured information was used to commit offenses in violation of international law, Geneva violations, and other things. Again, the Presidential power to pardon does not extend to cases of international crimes against non-US citizens in breach of Geneva.
ConcernedCanuck @ 57:
What, to use for the enima I suggested?
Lawyer @ 44:
Thanks for the very polite correction. I wish I had double-checked both halves of my post, instead of just the first.
As to the $500, you'll have to sue me. tee hee
ps. on the strength of my post that was half wrong, I've been offered a part-time job doing research for Major Garrett ... silver linings, dudes
remember the movie, "They Shoot Horses", well..............
I disagree the Presidential pardon will mean much. The Constitution only grants pardon power to the President in cases of offenses against the United States:
Article II, Section 2
FISA violations are civil cases and civil remedies by private persons, and outside the FISA. Also, State AGs are litigating violations of States' citizens' privacy rights, also outside offenses against the United States.
Whether the DOJ or Congress does or doesn't attempt to enforce criminal sanctions is a separate issue. Indeed, these could be pardoned, but only if there is no impeachment effort. The Pardon power does not extend to "cases of impeachment". This is why impeachment investigations are important: they would strip the defendant of any promise of pardon in exchange for their silence or continued defiance of the Supreme Law and FISA.
The Constitution is silent on whether the President has any power to pardon offenses the State AGs are adjudicating; or for offenses against private citizens. Where there is no delegation of power, no power exists.
It appears the purpose of the behind-the-doors negotiations is to suppress evidence that the State AGs and other non-federal prosecutors might discover related to international war crimes. Again, the President has no power to pardon anyone for offenses against non-US citizens through Geneva violations. These are international war crimes, outside what the President can pardon.
Isn't that tantamount to saying they are Guilty?
I'm just askin'.
Chip @ 60:
It's enema. At least spell it correctly, or take some of that there English 101
Pardon the telecoms for the illegal acts that the Bush administration had them commit. Actually holding the Bush administration itself accountable is so completely out of the question. The fact that we can go on and on in congress and the media about the telecoms violating our civil rights and not even mention the administration which ordered it is so absurd it is in fact surreal. You have to be mentally deranged to look at this government and believe that it makes any sense.
-B
And check this out... http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013108J.shtml
There's a group of Democrats helping the Republicans to give the telecoms immunity... What a bunch of crooks and liars!!
A pardon can protect them from criminal prosecution but can it protect them from civil suits?
Blazorge @ 66:
Right on!!! You said it out loud and very well. Thanks!
Amazing. Daniel Schorr actually managed to get through a commentary without mentioning that he was on Nixon's "enemies list." By the way, did you know Daniel Shorr was on Nixon's enemies list?
You'd think someone with his background (he was on the Nixon enemies list) would have a bit more to say about the
InspectProtect Americans Act. Instead all he does is whine that we may have to hear about this issue for the next nine months, or until Chimpy issues a pardon.By the way, Daniel Schorr was on the Nixon enemies list.
A Presidential Pardon is, in and of itself, neither good nor bad. The amount of pardons per President per year served reflects nothing by itself. What matters is who is pardoned and what are they being pardoned of. Didn't Bush Sr. pardon all the IranConta slime?
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm
is an interesting site ConcernedCanuck, just 1 nit pick....any idea why the University of Pittsburgh would have Bill Clinton's name bolded? could it be THIS?
He can't pardon the Telecoms and protect them from civil liability. A pardon wouldn't have prevented the successful lawsuits against OJ Simpson. A pardon doesn't prevent the Plame's, if they so chose, to sue the crap out of Libby. Pardons can only prevent criminal prosecution but not civil litigation.
Civil litigation might be better anyway. The penalties are unhinged from the current law and can be arbitrarily large. And it would lead to MORE civil litigation.
Well, gee Dan,as predictions go.. That's not exactly a big stretch ya know.. The real question is will the next president recind it, and will the next president decide for the good of the nations reputation and honor, to bring the Bush admin principles to account for their criminal endeavors in the eyes of the law.... Right now, George Bush is doing everything hs can to manipulate the situation so he doesn't even have to face that possibility.. But I have no doubt he will provide a blanket pardon if he has to, and not just to the telcoms..... There is that little bit of business with Blackwater Inc. not to mention Halliburtin and all the other private entities making cash over there at everyones expense... and delievering poor service or poor product.... I imagine that motherfucker getting writers cramp big-time from all the pardons he'll be signing on his way out the door.....JD
F you Nancy Pelosi!!!
You will go down as the turd who let our country be despoiled (without any accountability) by the biggest criminal idiot in all of history. Quite a legacy for the first madam speaker.
Yahoo and AT&T SUCK
the service SUCKS try calling once............
they wire tapped illegaly on Americans families troops that DIED in iraq..
NO WAY IN HELL should thses bastards be given a
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD............
Pelosi will be dirven out of office next election
for siding with BIg oil, big At&T and big bush
when CINDY SHEEHAN takes her job.............ha ha h ah ahhaha hah ha
Well, duh! Isn't that obvious? Every time I listen to Daniel Schorr on NPR he says the bleeding obvious as though he just put it together. I have never heard any original commentary from Schorr.
not possible if he and cheney are charged as co-conspirators to break the FISA warrant wiretap laws for insisting the telco's do so eight months PRIOR to 9/11!
How does congress resist beginning immediate impeachment hearings based on the evidence already at hand?
Were I the next president, my first act, the instant I was sworn in would be to sign an executive order rejoining the ICC. My next act, before the ink dried on the executive order would be to order the arrest of Bush, Cheney and most of his cabinet and order the renditioned to the Hague to be held indefinetely pending case building for crimes against humanity. Bush can't pardon himself from international prosecution for his crimes and atrocities.
FreedomOfInformationAct @ 78:
How does Premier Bushski avoid impeachment? He has his three most loyal and trusted apparachniks/deep cover moles, Nancvetlana Pelosivitch, Stenyomir Hoyerskovitch and Harryevgeny Reidonov working overtime obstructing justice and making sure he will never be held accountable by any US institution.
♥♂ @ 64:
In a nutshell, YES.
FreedomOfInformationAct @ 81:
Turley: “It Is Rather Clear That What The President Ordered Was A Federal Crime”
By: Logan Murphy on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 at 9:01 AM - PST
The Bush administration has been using the “state secrets” defense in order to have federal law suits challenging their illegal eavesdropping programs thrown out of court. So far, they have been successful; thanks, in most cases, to lazy or partisan judges who have given little or no scrutiny of the validity of their claims which, according to Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley on Tuesday’s Countdown, are nothing more than unconstitutional attempts to cover up their own federal crimes.
Olbermann: “With or without this new law, suppose one of the anti-wiretapping civil lawsuits succeeds, what does that legal victory actually mean then in terms of stopping the government or punishing Alberto Gonzales or any other top officials who were responsible for this?”
Turley: “Well, it can mean a lot and that’s one of the reasons there’s a lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans, who don’t want to see it happen. They don’t want a court to say that the president did something that is a federal crime. That’s why they’re trying to get all these cases thrown out of court because it is rather clear that what the president ordered was a federal crime, clearly defined in federal law. But that causes a problem because many of the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders have promised each other that they would not start impeachment proceedings, but when a federal judge says the president committed a crime, it’s pretty darn hard to ignore that.”
147 Responses
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/28/turley-it-is-rather-clear-that-...
Rep. Hall Stands up for Impeachment in NH
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=4113
Impeach Cheney, Bush and Pelosi!
By Ted Lang
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18786.htm
Greens: McClellan Bombshell Demands Impeachment
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald Must Probe New Evidence in Plame Case;
Democrats and Republicans Who Refuse to Hold Bush and Cheney Accountable Are Complicit in White House Crimes
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1128-17.htm
"Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call!"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_mikehers_071128__22come_senato...
No question about it. Valerie Plame was covert. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAbDfTA1KT4
One of the best reporters on TV is DAVID SHUSTER of MSNBC News and in this video he takes viewers through the whole "outing" of Valerie Plame and subsequent conviction of "Scooter" Libby.
Scott McClellan's new book, "What Happened," which claims both Bush and Cheney were in on the outing of Valerie Plame, is chronicled here in this excellent report by David Shuster of MSNBC.
Never in a million years would you see a reporter or anchor from FOX NEWS tell the truth like David Shuster does in this video package.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C09izYkX47k
FURTHER PROOF VALERIE PLAME WAS A CIA COVERT OPERATIVE not a desk jockey as Brit Hume, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly and weirdo Neil Cavuto calls her.
Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled.
Another issue was whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there. Hubris contains new information undermining the charge that she arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip, acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her involvement was more significant than it had been
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn
Here is a link to Plame testifying before a Congressional committee investigating the CIA leak case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k3GuVTfWLw
Part 2 of Valerie Plame video testimony before Congress re CIA leak case now part of the Scott McClellan book on how the WH lied to get the U.S. into war with Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epOuEZTfNM
Pt. 3 of video showing Valerie Plame testifying before Congress re CIA leak case that is now the focal point of Scott McClellan's new book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0K-pSNw_O4
KATIE COURIC INTERVIEWS VALERIE PLAME FOR ‘60 MINUTES’ PROGRAM lending more substance to the fact FOX NEWS has tried to bury the information contained in the new Scott McClellan book which I write about in this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV-REM00YbY&feature=related
ADDING MORE FACTS TO MY POST HERE IS AN INTERVIEW WITH VALERIE PLAME AND MSNBC'S KEITH OLBERMANN. This all makes FOX NEWS look like the Bush waterboys they are. A cover-up inside of a cover-up with FOX News leading the charge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKPV07o5S0&feature=related
Adding substance to the claims made in McClellan's new book and virtually ignored by FOX News is a two-part video interview by TruthOut.ORG with Valerie Plame which can be seen here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112107A.shtml
There is also additional proof that Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in the "leak" of Valerie Plame's name to the media. Cheney's Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
Hardball tackles the Bush White House CIA identity Leak issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRY5cUW7_V8
Bush needs to come clean, or be impeached
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlb0nriL7gA
JOE WILSON GOES ON CNN'S AMERICAN MORNING TO CALL PRESIDENT BUSH A TRAITOR: SEE VIDEO HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRcMaeQMitM
WATCH VIDEO OF JOE WILSON TALKING TO KEITH OLBERMANN ABOUT HIS WIFE, VALERIE PLAME, AND THE NEW SCOTT MCCLELLAN BOOK, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF MY POST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XyVSeNHYak
MSNBC'S JOE SCARBOROUGH RIPS INTO ROBERT NOVAK FOR OUTING VALERIE PLAME. SEE VIDEO HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1BxKIDLv4
"Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
JOHN DEAN TALKS TO KEITH OLBERMANN ABOUT THE VALERIE PLAME CIA LEAK CASE AND SCOTT MCCLELLAN'S NEWS BOOK which is subject of my post: See video here:
This is only 4 days old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuKva-RANxQ
Everyone in Washington knew Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war with Iraq as far back as 2000. Cheney had Joe Wilson go to Africa to dig into Niger selling Yellow Cake to Saddam. When Wilson couldn't find any proof, Cheney set the ball in motion to out Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. It is well documented Cheney visited the CIA offices in late in 2002 looking for information on Plame. Cheney finally had "Scooter" Libby start leaking to the press the name of Valerie Plame. Then the Bush WH tried to blame it all on Richard Armitage and FOX NEWS went right along with the lie selling it to their braindead audience of trolls.
Now Scott McClellan has written a book that tells the truth. Bush, Cheney, Rove etc. etc. were ALL in on the outing of Valerie Plame and she was a CIA operative and now a desk jockey like FOX NEWS says.
Most of the story is contained in this link:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn
But there is much, much more
The conviction says Libby illegally obstructed justice in the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He was also convicted of perjury and making false statements to FBI agents.
The investigation of Karl Rove revolved around the same issues, among possible others.
Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”
Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative—it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.”
The American people must know this important truth: This indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Traitors all, the Bush administration should face justice by being tried and convicted and sentenced for their henious crimes.
They betrayed the nation and it’s constitution that they themselves swore to protect. defend and uphold. They have betrayed us all. There is no worse crime against the American People.
[FOIA-when you make a post with 6 or more links, it will not show right away. Someone has to approve it. Would you please try not to complicate thing by posting it again? It just takes time trying to figure out if it's 2 separate posts or a repeat. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
Nuremberg Prosecutor Says Bush Could be Prosecuted for War Crimes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "mg"
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:21:39 -0600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
By Jan Frel, AlterNet
Posted on July 10, 2006, Printed on October 17, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/
.. . .
Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United
States or its political leadership could possibly do that
could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The
Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan
once put it.
But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently
and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet
is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in
Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the
Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers
for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed
more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen
Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding
father of the basis behind international law regarding war
crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the
Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established
the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence
in that realm.
Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is
his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the
highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade
Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib,
the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of
thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha,
and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can
be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme
crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of
aggression against a sovereign nation."
Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a
simple summary of the case:
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed
to by the United States formulated by the United States in
fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no
nation can use armed force without the permission of the
U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with
self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation
of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council
resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons
inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what
they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to
do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq --
which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States
went to war, in violation of the charter."
It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear
breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's
legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council
resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an
invasion in 2003 . . ."
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
source
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/2007-10/msg02...
Impeaching Bush and Cheney: Some thoughts about Justice and History.
http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2008/01/impeaching-bu...
By the way, KO has a Special Comment on FISA on his regular Countdown show tonight. I wonder if he will reference this post tonight.
Didn't sound like a prediction to me, or even to be directed at the potential pardon. His point was that the rest of this presidency will be mired in the muck.
Bushed Squared
The Emperor’s New Clothes
January 30th, 2008
I watched Bush’s “State of the Union” address Monday night, first while getting some exercise at the gym, and then listening in the car on the way home. And I found the whole thing somewhat disturbing and pathetic. Not just the man, or his message, but the process on the whole.
I did a bit of research on the protocol and practices of this process. It has an interesting history, including being discontinued by Thomas Jefferson who regarded it as being to monarchial, submitted in writing instead through the early 20th century, before being returned to a speech and evolving into what we have today, and I observed Monday, with a good deal of distain.
I have to assume that, in the beginning, this was intended to be an opportunity to deliver a message to Congress as to the progress, issues and objectives of the office of the Presidency and the workings of the political system under which these bodies operated.
But now it seems like a media event, a show being put on, and a platform for pushing agendas and policies.
As far as I’ve seen, Bush has a very low approval rating and is widely considered to be the worst president ever. I think most people see him as an embarrassment and a failure. It’s also reasonable to say that we’ve been lied to, misled and deceived in numerous ways.
So what’s with the applause and adoration?
[Edited. Too long. A snip and a link-plenty. And please quit posting twice. Your posts tend to go into the spam filter or moderation. It takes time to figure out if they're the same, since you change the second one somewhat. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
http://ubiquitousites.com/wordpress/?p=895
Sending a message
Reformer.com
Thursday, January 31
It may be a purely symbolic gesture, but the upcoming Town Meeting vote on whether Brattleboro should indict President Bush and Vice President Cheney certainly raised the ire of conservatives all over the country.
The Municipal Center was swamped this week with nasty phone calls and e-mails, many containing language unprintable in this newspaper.
The level of rage from those who still believe that President Bush can do no wrong is astounding to behold. But while we're surprised there are still that many people in America who support Bush, we understand their rage.
Put yourself in the shoes of a diehard Bush supporter. You believed President Bush would avenge the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but Osama bin Laden has never been captured and Afghanistan remains a safe haven for al-Qaida.
You believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq posed a grave threat to America, but the WMDs turned out to have never existed and all the rationales for war turned out to be lies (see www. publicintegrity.org/WarCard for a fully searchable database of hundreds of false statements issued by the Bush administration in the two years after 9/11).
[Edited-See above]
http://reformer.com/editorials/ci_8126021
READ ALL THE COMMENTS - http://www.topix.net/forum/source/brattleboro-reformer/TA3QCA0Q7CDR6LE5N
G.W. Bush Is a Criminal, Like His Dad
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-01-31 20:12. Media
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30615
Crime of the Century: Time for Congress to Stand Up
Submitted by dlindorff on Thu, 2008-01-31 23:24. Impeachment
By Dave Lindorff
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30619
if a president is being impeached, can he pardon anyone?
Lollimom @ 6:
If the Nixon pardon meant anything, there should be ground rules for Pardons by the president. There is only precedents that outlines who a president pardons and why as far as I know. If Chimpy breaks the mold and pardons ATT, and Verspyzon et.al. then a constitutional amendment limiting pardons to those who have actually convicted of a crime.
If the Supreme Court was made up differently it could be a good grounds for a lawsuit that would undermine the idea of Corporate person-hood. Pardons should only be for real people
Comments are closed on this entry