HJC Hearing on Libby’s Get Out of Jail Free Card, Two
Coble: I thank ye. For what it’s worth, it’s probably not worth anything, I would have declined prosecution.
Wilson: Anytime a covert officer is betrayed, all those people are presumed
Coble: Is this the first time someone was pardoned before appeal finished?
Adams; One case in Clinton. His sentence was commuted.
Coble: Sandy Berger Sandy Berger Sandy Berger. Guilty plea. What puniitive action?
Coble: Rivkin: a new Libby motion. Defendants will argue for downward departure. Are you aware of any instance, in which defendant has argued for a reduced sentence.
Rivkin: None. There’s a fundamental difference between way President exercises pardon, and Judge in sentencing. You can argue that, but that’s apples to oranges.
Lee: Thank my Chairman, most constructive oversight in over a decade. Compliment him for matching leg with oversight. Past conferences complete lack of oversight. Let me speak to Rich. One, President did pardon Mr. Rich. Expose of that, the point was made that experts who indicated that this should have been civil case. Two tax attorneys, they thought appropriate tax matters occurred. Staff members advised against it, Clinton waived Exec Priv.
Mr Wilson I will ask about Ms Wilson: THe lives that have been lost in this wrong-headed war.
Wilson: I can’t speak to damage assessment. Valerie was asked about all her contacts and programs. All of this is compartmentalized. Let me also say that while article on July 6 designed to alert fellow Americans, in making the justification for taking the country to war. This hearing designed to determine whether Pres used commutation authority in order to engage in coverup.
Lee: Judge Walton: evidence overwhelming. VP and impact on House. It indicated that Bush uncharacteristically that Bush put into this. Great review that they were disappointed that evidence so strong. Can you account for Cheney enforcing commutation of Libby.
Adams: Neither I nor my officer had anything to do with commutation. I do not know whether waived exec priv.
Conyers: July 11, Fred Fielding indicated we respectfully must decline that Pres must provide docs and witnesses and trust that committee will understand.
Gallegy, (Oops, killed that)
Delahunt suggests that Rita’s lies had fewer consequences.
Wilson: Niger claims–did not rise to his standards.
Delahunt, failure to appoint special prosecutor, would have, infected the body politic, in terms of credibility of the investigation. I cannot imagine a justice department, not having appointed a special prosecutor. I have heard of Mr. Fitzpatrick [gerald] I defended that appointment.
Wilson: My understanding is that Ashcroft decided to recuse himself because of a potential conflict of interest. That’s what one does.
Keller: First, is there evidence that this pardon was given to protect senior White House officials. Do you have any evidence that Libby threatened to incriminate VP or Pres if he didn’t receive a pardon?
Rivkin: I cannot conceive of any context… [I’ll help you out, Mr.]
Keller: Not like others [Clinton, Clinton, Clinton]
Keller: Legality of pardon and commutation. Bill Clinton said that this administration, law minor obstacle. Hillary, elevated cronyism over rule of law. Was Constitution followed by Bush.
Adams: he had the power.
Wexler: President’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence egregious. Encourages obstruction of justice. I’m going to introduce censure motion [because he’s a fricking idiot, in Marcy’s opinion] Protect Bush and Cheney from further scrutiny. [Mr. Wexler, we haven’t proved this yet. We can, you know–the evidence is all there, but your censure motion is going to blow our opportunity to do so. /end soapbox] Could he have commuted to lower sentence
Adams: yes, Martha Stewart.
Lungren: He’s the President and you’re not. And poor Libby got double the recommendation.
Wilson: I’m a citizen of this country.
Lungren: CIA people didn’t know your wife was covert?
Wilson: that’s possible.
Lundgren: recommended by wife? Is WaPo part of conspiracy against your wife.
Wilson: It means you can’t always believe what you read in your press.
Wilson: On October 2 2002, the DDCI testified that the British Niger case was weak. The day after my op-ed, the WH said the intell didn’t raise to the level that the SOTU.
Wilson In my article, all of this reached the same conclusions. The DCI and DDCI testified to Congress went to great lengths to try to remove this from any speech they presented.
[Good job Joe.]
Cohen: Standards for pardon or commutation.
Adams: Acceptance of responsibility.
Cohen: What happens if he violates probation? Go back to work for Cheney? Divergence on this panel. Democrats howling. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We can amend the Constitution.
[Or, we can do what the Founders told us to do–impeach]
Cohen: Could it be amended, or should the President have the power of a King?
Cochran: I’d be disappointed. It’s right to describe it as king-like. I fear, and much of my scholarship.
Cochran: pardon is about our country’s values–the concept of mercy. What worries me most is not that Mr. Libby alone got a pardon, it’s that the President has pardoned more turkeys than other people. I’m inclined to notice, hold the Administration’s feet to the fire.
Chris Cannon: We ought to have more aggressive approach to have executive Branch oversee overzealous prosecutors.
[Shorter Cannon: Hey, let’s have the President fire more prosecutors. Let’s have him fire Carol Lam!! That’s a good idea. Oh wait. He already did that!!!]
Cannon: They say eloquently that we have a myth, that myth has been repeated by Chairman and others.
Cannon: I would take it that given your zeal for truth, you would encourage her to come and talk to Government Reform.
Wilson: The purpose of testifying today is to get the truth out. I don’t believe there were inconsistencies.
Conyers: Chair would enquire, would he like to make addition responses:
Wilson: with respect to SSCI part II, it perpetuates some of the myths. It perpetuates that I asserted VP sent me. You’ll find there were three articles, they were focused most closely on. Nicholas Kristof, Ackerman, Pincus, my article. I’ve looked at all those articles, OVP asked the question, which is what my wife testified to. The other is this assertion that I said I had debunked it.
Artur Davis: Let me pick up on comments that Pres made while Gov of Texas. Charge to Keep. He had occasion to make comments about standards he uses. I don’t believe my role is to replace verdict of jury of my own, unless new facts. Pres on another occasion said, same book, Ask two questions. Is the person guilty of a crime. Did he have full access to courts of law. Let me just ask panel, to your knowledge, has POTUS raised any new facts? [All witnesses shaking heads negatively] Libby trial unfairly. Judge in this case, appointed by Bush, correct? Prosecutor, Republican appointee of Bush. I even recall that Fitzgerald approached to be nominee by Rove.
Davis: 4000 requests for clemency, 3 counted–does that include Libby?
Adams: Libby is the 4th.
Davis: Why not grant a pardon? Do this analysis for me, if POTUS had granted a pardon, that might have subjected Libby to be called before this committee.
Davis: If Bush had presented a pardon, Libby could not have been subpoenaed? So one effect of this commutation, is that it has the effect of immunizing this individual of ever being called to testify. That ought to be worrisome to the Committee. If the president have given a pardon, I think we’d rather have heard from Libby. Because of commutation, that created a different scenario. Let me give you this hypothetical. If an allegation had been made that Clinton leaked the identity.
Wilson: Let me refer to the first President Bush, the most heinous of traitors.
Issa: Does President have the right to commute a sentence?
Wilson: whether he impeded any incentive to cooperate with Proscutor.
Issa: the fact is he granted no immunity. He simply said, you’re not going to hail. Failure of candor, lying, same thing.
Issa; your wife came before the House and the Senate, I’ve read classified documents, I’ve come to the opinion that she perjured herself. Do you think the fact that your wife was not completely candid, that she should not be granted any limitation on a sentence?
Wilson: The question before this committee…
Issa: the Question before you is appropriate. You have been chosen to be here through no accident. Was this intellectually honest. If your wife has been perjured herself before the Senate?
Wilson: My wife answered truthfully and honestly …