Posted on 10/29/2005 6:05:53 AM PDT by Liz
MARCH 2, 2001
Lewis Libby, a top Republican lawyer, who is now VP Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told the House Government Reform Committee....that he agreed with much of Bill Clinton's widely discredited op-ed article outlining the former president's reasons for pardoning fugitive tax evader Marc Rich.
In a session that stretched late into the evening, Libby, who represented Rich for several years ending in the spring of 2000, told the committee he believes Rich is not guilty of tax and racketeering charges filed by federal prosecutors in 1983. Libby said he "quite possibly" would have considered applying for a pardon for Rich had Rich asked him to do so.
Libby, who said his law firms collected as much as $2 million for representing Rich, testified he had nothing to do with the application that led to clemency for Rich.
He declined to say whether he approved of the decision to pardon Rich, but he conceded that he called Rich on January 22, two days after the pardon, to "congratulate him on having reached a result that he had sought for a long time." Libby testified he made the call from his home to make clear that he was calling in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Bush administration.
In a particularly damaging exchange with Pennsylvania Democrat Paul Kanjorski, Libby agreed that Rich might be characterized as a traitor for fleeing the country and renouncing his American citizenship. Kanjorski asked Libby why he would call a traitor to congratulate him on his good fortune in winning a pardon. Visibly uncomfortable, Libby had no answer.
For Republicans, Libby's testimony was a sour endnote to what had been a long day of revelations that made President Clinton's decision to pardon Rich seem even more inexplicable than previously thought.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
And replace it with ????
You seem to be missing the point. Check my posts #42 and #52. It has nothing to do with the relationship of a lawyer to his client. Libby ceased representing Rich in the Spring 2000, almost a year before he made his January 22, 2001 congratualtory call to Rich. Libby's was the VP's Chief of Staff when he made the call.
His defense of Rich at the Congressional hearing coupled with his congratulatory telephone call was a colossal blunder. For someone who was supposed to be so brilliant, he demonstrated a political tin ear. At the time, the entire country, including members of both parties and the MSM, were outraged by the Clinton pardon of Rich.
Moreover, Clinton himself cited Libby's representation of Rich as part of his defense of his pardon. Clinton said, Rich “had three big-time Republican lawyers, including [Vice President] Dick Cheney’s chief of staff,” he said. “Marc Rich himself is a Republican.” Clinton made this statement on February 16, 2001 before Libby's March testimony before Congress. Instead of distancing himself from Clinton, Libby chose to associate himself with Clinton's six reasons for granting a pardon.
"They really want payback for Clinton's impeachment."
The "They" being HILLARY CLINTON .. and her willing sychophants in the dem party (because she has their FBI files).
You're right. AND it doesn't help when the Bush family is way to close with Bill Clinton for comfort. They may trust Clinton, but I don't..go figure.
sw
"... such intelligent people in Bush White House were stupid enough to chat off the record with evil MSM ..."
Interesting statement! I agree. When are conservatives going to learn - the MSM is not your friend - no matter what they say or what they promise you.
But .. this Libby guy must have had some inside track to the liberal MSM because of his defense of Rich. But .. you can't play both sides anymore .. it's not possible. People must chose which side they're going to support and not give the MSM any more ammunition .. Lord knows we have enough RINO's in congress who already side with the liberals.
So .. are you lumping Mark Levin in that statement ..??
SOME lawyers are skunks - but not all of them are.
The premiss as to why Miller went to jail is missing one element.
When Judith was plea bargaining with Fitz, she ask for a "condition" to her testimony - that being = she would not have to testify to anything other than her conversations with Libby".
Does that ring any bells or raise any red flags with anybody .. I sure hope so. What the "condition" says to me is that Miller learned about Valerie from some big democrat's staffer (my guess is Hillary), and Miller wants to be sure she does not have to testify about any conversations other than those with Libby.
The fact that Fitz agreed to such a thing .. stuns me! If he really wanted the truth, he would have never agreed to such a "condition".
Actually, it's just a blindness in Washington that I have never figured out. I trust Cheney. However, for him to choose a person as Chief of Staff who supports Clinton .. it's beyond me. But in the beltway .. a lot of conservatives believe most people are there to serve AMERICA - not their party. That's a bad mistake to make.
The dems are so partisan - they sacrificed 3000 lives to support a flawed position on national defense - because their coward of a president did not want to face the realities of war - even after we were attacked over and over and over. Instead, they were so partisan they hid the information and lied to the AMERICAN people.
Why anyone with as much brain power and common sense as Cheney would select a liberal partisan hack to serve in his office is just beyond me.
It's this same mindset which has Bush senior palsy-walsy with Clinton. Clinton is scum and he should be treated as such. I can see being polite and not bad-mouthing the office of the presidency. But Clinton was the one who abused it .. not the Bushes.
I believe this oil for food money to France and Russia and Germany was exactly why Clinton toured the world (on the pretense of selling Hillary's book) in order to garner support AGAINST THE WAR.
You know .. Because Clinton did this and threatened Blair with the possibility of not winning re-election .. it was easy to connect the dots to Hillary's part in this Wilson mess.
But .. as always .. the dems have no "vision" .. and what awaits them is a trial where these same hallowed reporters will be called to testify UNDER OATH again regarding what they said or did not say to Libby. And .. I believe it will come back to bite the dems once again.
You know the Liberals will do anything to win, wherever they can cheat or twist things in their favor, they are going to be on it.
"Hire. Wrong word."
What is the right word! Was Libby already there when Cheney arrived ..?? Did Libby already work in Gore's office ..??
As part of the agreement, Bennett, her lawyer, gave Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with Libby.
Libby's version of the Miller/Libby July 2003 conversation: Miller asked Libby during their talk whether he knew Wilson, who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration.
Libby claims he said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the CIA that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material.
Still confused?
You are not alone, in the convoluted, elliptical world of the scooters, that's par for the course. Although Libby's past activities throw a searching spotlight on his recent activities.
How do we always get the short straw, why don't our representatives wake up?
Can you be more specific? Do you merely mean that Libby's lawyering for the unethical Rich makes it unsurprising that Libby would be unethical in dealing with a grand jury? Or do you mean something else?
I remember she gave Fitz some of her notes - at the last minute. I kept wondering what she was saving them for .. but I guess if they were edited .. I have my answer.
This was a CIA/media hatchet job on the WH - no doubt about it in my mind.
"The reason he agreed was because he didn't want to hear anything concerning a Democrat."
If that's true .. then why would he go after Martha Stewart ..?? And .. Libby got indicted for the very same reason Stewart did .. lying.
Ok, that's it. Never mind if the case against him is factual. He's a freind of Rich. Skip the trial, let's hang him now!
Anyone wonder if maybe Novak's source is a covert CIA operative? Would explain why, even now, that source is not being made public by Fritz.
Oh, I think it's more than just Hillary and her sycophants. She probably leads the way, but there are a lot of angry 'Rats out there who have never forgiven the Republicans for (a) winning the last two elections, and (b) impeaching the Bent One. They really, really hate us. They hate Republicans so much, in fact, that they're willing--no, EAGER--to destroy this country to spite us.
Yes, that's the very definition of insanity, but it's true.
Nor is it being made public by Novak himself, even though some time back, he said would in "October." October is nearly gone, and still nothing from Novak.
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.