1
   

Bush, Cheney Crime: Withholding Evidence from Grand Jury

 
 
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 08:28 am
Quote:
Gangster Government
By Greg Palast
GregPalast.com

Sunday 09 April 2006

A leaky president runs afoul of 'Little Rico.'

It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual.

'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself - in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.

OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened - but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.

On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody - I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info - knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial - most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil of motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe:

"Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts."

Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment."

Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a "racketeering enterprise."

So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights.

After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits of the fraud " - lock, stock and gun barrels - and bring the boys home.

And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER" - and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006N.shtml
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,134 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:48 am
Quote:
OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened - but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con.


The author is right, that point has been overlooked.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:54 am
Interesting.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:56 am
The lefties were screaming for an investigation into criminal wrongdoing.

They had their investigation.

There wasn't any criminal wrongdoing.

It's as simple as Wilson lying about how he got the Niger gig, and what the facts were. The WH wanted people to know what they felt was important information about Wilson.

They know.

They calculated releasing those facts would be a positive for them, but they miscalculated.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:58 am
Except... they didn't really admit to releasing Plame's name, though, did they? And Libby didn't say it was the president that leaked her name. Just that he authorized the leaking of the NIE. That, in itself, is problematice, but I think we'd be jumping the gun quite a bit to say that the administration is claiming that leaking Plame's name is legal.

I do think that the VP will come out dirty in the Plame leak, but I'd be very surprised if it reaches the president. Not that it matters. He already looks weak and the image of a VP who was able to assume a great bit of the president's power doesn't make him look any stronger.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:00 am
Lash wrote:
It's as simple as Wilson lying about how he got the Niger gig, and what the facts were. The WH wanted people to know what they felt was important information about Wilson.


But that's really just spin, isn't it? How did he lie, by not outing his own wife?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:23 am
Before the release of that information, it appeared that Wilson was chosen by the CIA, because of qualifications, and that he'd conducted a thorough investigation. --not that he went for his wife to prove the point she wanted proven.

He lied when he said that he wasn't sent by her--and it needed to be known she said BEFORE he went, that Bush's assertion was a lie (which it wasn't.)

She and her husband did this with a preordained goal of calling Bush a liar. It was nepotism, and a pre-planned hatchet job. People deserved to know it.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:38 am
Quote:
Before the release of that information, it appeared that Wilson was chosen by the CIA, because of qualifications, and that he'd conducted a thorough investigation. --not that he went for his wife to prove the point she wanted proven.


Wilson was chosen by the CIA because of qualifications. His wife suggested his name. His wife apparently didn't have the power or authority to send him for a "point she wanted proven". Moreover, he did do a good job. The lead was false and he determined that.

Quote:
'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself - in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.


Libby did no such thing. He outed the Pres and VP as authorizing the disclosure of other information, but not Plame's undercover status. I think the President was morally dishonest by having this information released this way, but he is the President and cannot "leak" almost by definition. I think if he chooses to share information with the public, he should just release it directly to the press like he normally does.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:40 am
Lash wrote:
Before the release of that information, it appeared that Wilson was chosen by the CIA, because of qualifications, and that he'd conducted a thorough investigation. --not that he went for his wife to prove the point she wanted proven.

He lied when he said that he wasn't sent by her--and it needed to be known she said BEFORE he went, that Bush's assertion was a lie (which it wasn't.)

She and her husband did this with a preordained goal of calling Bush a liar. It was nepotism, and a pre-planned hatchet job. People deserved to know it.


Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how the release of cherry-picked bits of the NIE showed that.

Is it a fact that she "chose" him or did she just recommend him (based on his experience, which was applicable)? Is it a fact that she and he had the intention of calling Bush a liar? Did she say that Bush's assertion was a lie?

From what I understand, that's all administration spin and playing with language. He WAS sent by the CIA, and I believe that's all he claimed. For him to say, in his op-ed, that his CIA operative wife recommended him would have outed her.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:47 am
If I hate you, and I think you're lying, and I get my husband a gig on a "fact-finding" mission to prove whether or not you're lying, what chance do you think you have that you'll get a fair shake?

Yes, it is on record that she referred to her negative opinion of Bush's assertion about yellowcake in Niger before her husband was sent.

It's in the 911 Commission Report.

The Report also discredits more than one of Wilson's "findings" and efforts.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:52 am
Lash wrote:
If I hate you, and I think you're lying, and I get my husband a gig on a "fact-finding" mission to prove whether or not you're lying, what chance do you think you have that you'll get a fair shake?


And if you're the president...

But the facts don't indicate that she hated/hates Bush or that she "got her husband a gig".

Quote:
Yes, it is on record that she referred to her negative opinion of Bush's assertion about yellowcake in Niger before her husband was sent.

It's in the 911 Commission Report.


Then I'd love to see a quote.

Quote:
The Report also discredits more than one of Wilson's "findings" and efforts.


But many of his "findings" panned out and discredited the president's claims. It's pretty clear that the president continued to state information as fact long after it had been disputed. Changing the focus to Wilson was just part of their goal to divert public eyes away from their own lying faces. Even if Wilson is a liar, clearly, so are they. Those 16 words are still available for everyone to see.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:56 am
Point out the lie in the 16 words.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 07:59 am
I would opine that regardless of the outcome of the Plame Game the Bush whitehouse will continue to suffer loss of credibility. Underneath it all is the failure of the Iraq invasion.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:11 am
Lash wrote:
Point out the lie in the 16 words.


Are you seriously going to let them put it off on the British government? I didn't think you were one for letting people get away with mincing language to hide untruths.

They knew it was questionable. They were stretching the truth in order to bolster their case for war. What other explanation is there? I'd love to hear it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:29 am
It is wrong or you or me to pretend he said something else.

What he said was true, and it;'s only a lie when people act like he said something he didn't.

They believed SH had WMDs. The evidence pointed to it, but there was no smoking gun.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:39 am
I believed and I think the administration believed that Iraq had chemical WDM. I never believed, nor do I think there was ever any credible evidence to believe that Iraq had or was close to having nuclear WDM. Nor do I believe that Iraq ever posed a threat to the US. I personally believe that the administration did not believe that either, but considered SH a bad guy with no sympathizers who could be attacked without a lot of political fallout and where the US could start "democratizing" the Middle East. Certainly the other Middle East nations cried no tears to see SH go and his reputation as a bad guy was already well established. Still, I think we went to war on flimsy grounds.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:41 am
In actuality the evidence kept pointing away from it, but couldn't conclusively rule it out (because it is hard to prove that someone doesn't have something). Because of that, they were forced to use someone else's evidence which they themselves had doubts about.

If I know for a fact that the dining room is red, but I report to you with a straight face that my husband has just learned the dining room is in fact blue, it is not technically a lie. But it is extremely dishonest as I've already checked if the dining room was blue, and found it to be red. And my own intelligence sources have warned me that I shouldn't say that, as they're pretty sure that the dining room is red too. The only reason for me to then go ahead and say it is to make you think that the dining room is blue.

Aren't you curious as to why nobody ever investigated those forged documents?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:44 am
Probably the "mushroom cloud" bit was over the top.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 08:47 am
The Plame Game
posted by mortimer
on Apr 11, 2006 - 02:01 AM


'The faked Niger documents at the heart of the Valerie Plame affair may have been produced by American Neo-Cons to strengthen the case for war.

'"The Niger documents, which apparently were produced in America, were funnelled through the Italians", states Vincent Cannistro, former Head of Terrorism at the CIA. The documents originally came from former Italian spy, Rocco Martino. He worked for SISMI which opened a secret channel of communication with Neo-Cons to make the case for war.' (Journeyman video stream).

http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle15838.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 10:21 am
Lash wrote:
Before the release of that information, it appeared that Wilson was chosen by the CIA, because of qualifications, and that he'd conducted a thorough investigation. --not that he went for his wife to prove the point she wanted proven.
That has to be the biggest bunch of crap I have seen in a long time. His wife wanted to prove a point? Valerie Plame had no point to prove. She wasn't that involved in the process. She recommended her husband but didn't make the final decision.

Quote:

He lied when he said that he wasn't sent by her--and it needed to be known she said BEFORE he went, that Bush's assertion was a lie (which it wasn't.)
He wasn't sent by her. Valeria Plame is NOT the CIA. She works for it.
Quote:

She and her husband did this with a preordained goal of calling Bush a liar. It was nepotism, and a pre-planned hatchet job. People deserved to know it.
Quite the conspiracy there. They made a decision to tell a story that they KNEW that the WH would not believe just so they could call the WH liars? I am curious how Plame and Wilson knew that Bush would tell the people in a speech to the nation the direct opposite of what they informed him. It makes the WHy look like idiots for falling for such a ploy. Do you have evidence that Plame or Wilson wrote or vetted the speech? Because that is the ONLY way your conspiracy can hold up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush, Cheney Crime: Withholding Evidence from Grand Jury
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2025 at 01:54:29