Paul Begala: I Predict: Bush Will Pardon Rove

Arianna Huffington, Lawrence O’Donnell and others on this post have done a terrific job of staying on top of every new fact in the Plame-CIA leak case. I, however, want to go beyond the facts and engage in a little conjecture: George W. Bush will pardon Karl Rove.

I know I’m getting WAY ahead of the facts, but this thing has the smell of a serious legal problem for the Bush Administration. From the outside, Mr. Fitzgerald does not look like a prosecutor who sees wrongdoing but believes it falls short of criminal conduct, like, say, Joe DiGenova did when he investigated allegations that the Bush 41 Administration rummagedBill Clinton’s passport file.

The Bush team excels at political strategy. They pride themselves on seeing three moves ahead on the chess board. So let us look a few moves ahead as well:

Mr. Fitzgerald indicts Mr. Rove. Maybe for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, maybe the Espionage Act (which outlaws mishandling classified information). Perhaps the charge is a criminal cover-up – obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy or lying to a federal investigator.

As a former White House speechwriter, I’ve taken the liberty of drafting the speech for Mr. Bush:

My fellow Americans. We meet once again in dark and dangerous times. I remember well the terrible tragedy of September the 11th, 2001. Today, we have the terrorists on the run, and yet they attack our soldiers nearly every day inIraq. They bomb tourists in Egypt, kill innocents in London and Madrid and Indonesia and Kenya. This truly is a global struggle against violent extremism.

This is not a conventional war, and it will not be fought nor won by conventional means. At the heart of our success will be tactics and techniques that I am not free to divulge to you -- strategies and secrets you will never know. At a time like this, in a post-September the 11th, 2001 world, preserving, protecting and defending our national security secrets is literally a matter of life and death.

That is why I was so angry when the name of one of our CIA agents was revealed two years ago. I vowed then to cooperate in every way to bring the wrongdoers to justice, and I have done so. But what started as an investigation into national security has gone off track. Those who seek to undermine me politically are now pursuing a course that will harm America’s security and could invite another September the 11th, 2001.

Let me put this as plainly as I can: the charges against Karl Rove are false. He is an innocent man. He was a strong and steady presence at my side on September the 11th, 2001. And he has a right to defend himself, his good name, his lifetime of service to our country and his wonderful family. The charges that have been filed against him are the result of a secretive grand jury proceeding in which Karl has not been shown the evidence against him, has not been able to confront his accusers, has not even had a lawyer present when he was questioned -- a right every murderer in every police station has.

But now that the secret grand jury proceedings are over, more than anything else, Karl wants to stand up in the cold, clear light of day and defend his good name.

But here’s the problem. If Karl were to explain how and why he is innocent; if he were to offer his strong and compelling defense in public, it would reveal even more of our nation’s secrets. The terrorists have CNN, you know, and Karl’s trial would give them a daily tutorial in just how we fight the war on terror. They would learn lessons from the trial that might allow them to attack us here at home, just as they did on September the 11th, 2001.

I cannot allow this to happen. I cannot jeopardize the lives of our fighting men and women -- no matter how much I love Karl and no matter how badly he wants to clear his name. I have not forgotten the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. And I will not allow anything to happen that makes another September the 11th, 2001 possible. And so, in an act of selfless patriotism, Karl has agreed not to offer any public defense. He has agreed to keep secret all the evidence that clears him. And he has agreed -- at my insistence -- to accept a full, free and absolute pardon.

Although innocent, Karl will pay dearly. Those who oppose our efforts to combat terrorism will vilify him. I would remind them that in front of the stands a statue of Nathan Hale. A noose around his neck, Hale stands defiant, about to be executed by the British for keeping secrets that led to America’s independence. Nathan Hale said he regretted that he had but one life to give to his country. Karl himself has told me he regrets he has but one reputation, but he is willing to sacrifice it for his country, especially if it helps to prevent another September the 11th, 2001.

Karl’s selfless act will end the matter immediately and allow us all to get back to the life and death struggle against those who hate us for our freedoms, and who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001.

Starr Withholding Impeachable Evidence
Carl Limbacher
December 12, 1998

David Schippers, chief Republican counsel for the House committee that is poised to vote out four articles of impeachment against President Clinton, revealed late on Thursday that Attorney General Janet Reno and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr are withholding key evidence of impeachable crimes from Congress.
With next week's impeachment vote in the full House expected to be decided by a razor thin margin, Schippers revelation means that the president could survive in office despite clear and compelling evidence that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors beyond those developed in the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

In his closing arguments on Thursday, Schippers explained:

"We have received and reviewed additional information and evidence from the Independent Counsel, and have developed additional information from diverse sources.

Unfortunately, because of the extremely strict time limits placed upon us, a number of very promising leads had to be abandoned. We just ran out of time. In addition, many other allegations of possible serious wrongdoing cannot be presented publicly at this time by virtue of circumstances totally beyond our control.

For example, we uncovered more incidents involving probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury and abuse of power. We were, however, informed both by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the Independent Counsel that to bring forth publicly that evidence at this time would seriously compromise pending criminal investigations that are nearing completion. We have bowed to their suggestion."

Attorney General Reno's reluctance to turn over the goods is unsurprising. Only last Monday she declined to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the White House fundraising scandal after two years of stonewalling on that issue. The New York Times, once an admirer of Reno's, has recently described her tenure as the most compromised of any attorney generals since Watergate's John Mitchell.

Mr. Starr's decision, on the other hand, is as inexplicable as it is shocking. His reluctance to turn over the full dossier on Clinton while Congress considers the President's impeachment defies logic. What other "pending criminal investigations" could possible take precedence over one now weighing Clinton's fitness to continue in office?

Mr. Schippers noted that he has been told that those other investigations are "nearing completion". But it is widely believed that Starr regards a sitting president as unindictable. Should his completed investigations reveal new evidence of perjury, obstruction and witness tampering against Clinton after the House votes down impeachment - what then? And even if the House votes to impeach, will the Senate be able to consider new allegations not ruled on by the House?

Should impeachment based on Monicagate fail, the likelihood that the House would commence a second impeachment inquiry based on new evidence is beyond remote. Americans could be saddled with a president faced with broad based and credible allegations of criminality that render him unfit to serve. But because of Ken Starr's proprietary foot-dragging, the only recourse would be post-presidential prosecution.

But this year's impeachment is the World Series. Why is Mr. Starr saving his power hitters for next season's spring training? And even in this less than satisfying scenario, one well placed presidential pardon could leave the independent counsel scoreless, albeit with the bases loaded.

In truth, Starr's latest decision to withhold evidence at this key moment in history is part of his long pattern of less than aggressive prosecution. Only two days before Mr. Schippers revealed that the OIC was withholding evidence, Judge Royce Lamberth reversed a previous decision barring Judicial Watch from deposing Linda Tripp about Filegate. Tripp's Judicial Watch deposition had been scheduled for September, only to be blocked at the last minute when Starr's deputies complained that their own Filegate investigation was at an extremely sensitive stage and that any questioning of Tripp could torpedo the probe.

Two months later Ken Starr announced that he had found no evidence whatsoever implicating President Clinton in Filegate. Moreover, the OIC had determined that the scandal went no higher than two junior White House employees, D. Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca. And even after implicating Livingstone and Marceca, Starr offered no explanation as to why even they have not been indicted. Whatever happened to the "extremely sensitive" evidence Starr claimed would be compromised by Tripp's Judicial Watch testimony?

Only one explanation is possible. Starr and his investigators have rubber stamped that White House alibi that Filegate was just "a bureaucratic snafu", where even Livingstone and Marceca were mere victims of a giant misunderstanding.

Secret Service testimony contradicting the White House's Filegate alibi, the six month gap in Livingstone's Filegate log, the stacks of FBI files in William Kennedy's White House office as well as Linda Tripp's report that FBI files were being uploaded into White House computers - all that, you see, means nothing. And when William Clinger's Oversight Committee handed the OIC several Filegate criminal referrals in Sept. 1996, including one for chief of staff Mack McLarty, they were simply mistaken - bureaucratic snafu-wise.

Starr has evidently taken a pass on a long list of leads. Remember the debriefing notes taken by White House lawyers Jane Sherburne and Miriam Nemetz after Hillary Clinton's Jan. 26, 1996 appearance before Starr's grand jury? The White House fought tooth and nail to keep that evidence out of Starr's hands, eventually losing the protracted battle they waged all the way to the Supreme Court.

The night of that decision, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff predicted that if the Hillary notes were innocuous or only slightly damaging, the White House would promptly release the evidence themselves to minimize the damage. They didn't - and neither did Starr. And that's the last we've ever heard about the issue.

The mystery Whitewater check made out to Bill Clinton found in an abandoned car, the second set of Mrs. Clinton's billing records discovered by Lisa Foster in her attic, the memos by David Watkins and other White House aides pointing to Mrs. Clinton's Travelgate perjury, Mrs. Clinton's confession to RTC investigators that she shredded Castle Grande records one jump ahead of the sheriff, Jim McDougal's allegation that he had the President's promised to pardon him on tape (The NY Daily News, April 27, 1997) and even ominous evidence emerging in recent months that McDougal's death was perhaps less than accidental - all of this has apparently disappeared down the black hole of Ken Starr's never ending investigation.

Consider this: Insight Magazine (Dec. 28) now reports that a treasure trove of White House telephone records have materialized at the Old Executive Office Building - right next door to the White House. Investigators have been stonewalled for years on these records by Clinton lawyers who claimed they didn't exist. Of particular interest would be the record of Helen Dickey's phone call to Gov. Jim Guy Tucker on the day Vince Foster died. Dickey testified she made the call at 10:30pm.

But Arkansas trooper Roger Perry, who answered the phone and says he was told by Dickey that Foster had shot himself in the White House parking lot, signed a sworn affidavit stating that their conversation took place as early as 6:00pm Washington time - 15 minutes before Foster's body was discovered in Ft. Marcy Park. Perry's timeline is corroborated by fellow trooper Larry Patterson and Federal Marshal Lynn Davis, both of whom say Perry told them of Foster's death immediately after the Dickey call.

In Starr's final report on Foster's death, he reports that records for Dickey's call were simply "not available". Well, now they apparently are available. If Mr. Starr is interested - he isn't letting on.

We can sympathize with Mr. Schippers as he explains that his case against the President has been limited to Monica-related crimes because Ken Starr is saving his best material for a rainy day. But we can only hope the rains come before the full House decides that Monicagate just isn't enough to impeach Bill Clinton.

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order.

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.

In finding that Clinton deliberately lied in the Jones deposition and his written answers to questions posed by her lawyers, Wright ordered Clinton to pay "any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders." Wright also said Clinton should repay the $1,202 she incurred in traveling to Washington at Clinton's request to oversee the deposition and said she was referring the matter to state judicial authorities in Arkansas who could disbar Clinton for violating the legal profession's rules of conduct.

Washington Post

In an unprecedented ruling on April 12, 1999, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found a sitting president in contempt of court for his false testimony in legal proceedings against him: "It is difficult to construe the president's sworn statements ... as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this court's discovery orders." The President is supposed to be the chief law enforcement official in the nation, but Bill Clinton obviously viewed himself as being above the law (and so, apparently, did his supporters). Just two months earlier, Democratic Senators had voted unanimously to excuse Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) proposed a censure motion charging that Clinton "gave false and misleading testimony and impeded discovery of evidence in judicial proceedings" - thereby acknowledging that the president had indeed comitted felonies - yet she voted to acquit him on all charges.

Source

(Sorry about the music, it is almost as annoying as you)

In April 1999 Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case but did not press for any criminal charge. Wright referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Rather than undergo a review by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Clinton voluntarily surrendered his Arkansas law license.

Source

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.