Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label People Wilson-Valerie Plame Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label People Wilson-Valerie Plame Wilson. Show all posts

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Washington Post Debunks Valerie Plame Myths

Washington Post Debunks Valerie Plame Myths
The Washington Post continues its metamorphosis into a fair and balanced media outlet with an editorial exposing the “distortions and outright inventions” in the current film “Fair Game,” based on former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s book.
Read the Full Story — Go Here Now.

Washington Insider with Ronald Kessler


Dec 9, 2010 
If you have not tuned in to The Washington Post s transformation into a fair and balanced newspaper, you may be amazed to see its editorial about the recently released film Fair Game based on former CIA operative Valerie Plame s book. The editorial exposes some of the...


Dec 7, 2010 
For the annual CIA holiday party, security was tighter than usual. Guests underwent background checks after responding to their invitations, but still a cadre of CIA security officers lined the entrance road to headquarters at Langley. Dressed in black uniforms, the...


Dec 6, 2010 
In the 1950s, unions represented as much as 39 percent of the private sector workforce. Today, only 7 percent of the private sector is unionized. Desperate to reverse that trend, President Obama s two appointees to the National Mediation Board changed rules for airline and...


Dec 2, 2010 
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be prosecuted in this country for espionage, but he may never be brought back to the United States to face the charges. That s the judgment of John L. Martin, arguably the country s foremost expert on the subject. For 25 years, Martin...


Nov 29, 2010 
Media commentators have been proposing two alternatives to body scanning and searches of airline passengers: the Israeli approach, which relies on questioning passengers, and profiling.Neither alternative is feasible. Israeli airports handle 11 million airline passengers a...


Nov 24, 2010 
We all recognize how important the military is to preserving our freedom. But now that we are under attack by terrorists, few understand how important the FBI and CIA are to protecting us in this new war.Under Director Robert Mueller s leadership, the FBI has become more...


Nov 22, 2010 
The House Judiciary Committee will consider holding hearings on the Obama administration s decision to try Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani in civilian court, Rep. Ted Poe, a member of the committee, tells Newsmax. A federal jury convicted Ghailani of one count of...


Nov 19, 2010 
The trial of Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani demonstrates thatPresident Barack Obama s claim that enemy combatants can be triedeffectively in civilian courts is bogus. A federal jury convicted Ghailani of one count of conspiracy andacquitted him of 284 other counts,...

More Ronald Kessler stories
More Blogs:


Ernest Istook:

Washington Must Change Before Debt Limit Can Be Raised

Jackie Gingrich Cushman:

The Obama Administration's Flawed Foundation

Complete Newsmax Blogs

More Links:

Special: Get the CIA Cap, Drive Terrorist Apologists Nuts!

Feeling Down? Try These Six Super-Foods That Beat the Blues

Dividend Stocks: Smart Investing in the Age of Obama


*****

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

No Pardon For Libby

No Pardon For Libby

Bush uses clemency powers sparingly to the end by Michael Isikoff Jan 19, 2009 Newsweek Web Exclusive
www.newsweek.com/id/180448

In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.

On Bush's last full day as president, Bush did commute the sentence of two former Border Patrol agents—Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos—for shooting a Mexican drug dealer and then lying about it. But White House press spokesman Tony Fratto told NEWSWEEK "you should not expect any more" pardons and commutations from Bush before he leaves office Tuesday. Another senior official, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters, confirmed that no more pardons would be granted.

[…]

But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby's allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush's foreign policy during the president's first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby's pardon.

[…]

The rejection of Libby's bid is consistent with Bush's overall stingy record when it comes to using presidential pardon powers. In part as a reaction to Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon spree, including the especially controversial one granted to fugitive financier Marc Rich, Bush has issued far fewer pardons than any president in modern history, according to clemency scholars.


Read the entire article.
www.newsweek.com/id/180448
20090119 Newsweek No Pardon for Libby By Michael Isikoff
_____

It is an enigma. From what I have read in-depth, Mr. Libby’s only crime was to mess-up on recalling the chronology of events. As it was discovered, Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and the source for both Bob Woodward and Bob Novak.

Another account does reveal: “However, Mr. Novak has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

Mr. Armitage is/was not a political partisan. He just made a mistake. According to one published account: “But Newsweek reports Armitage didn't know Plame's employment was classified.”

Reportedly, Secretary Armitage told CBS Evening News: “I feel terrible… Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.”

Apparently there was quite a bit of bad blood between Mr. Libby and the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald took an opportunity to even the score.

It was a political prosecution… Made worse by the hypocrisy that we know as partisan politics in Washington.

Libby should have never been prosecuted and President George W. Bush ought to have pardoned him.

Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Monday, November 10, 2008

Washington Magazine: Bob Novak On Valerie Plame Affair: "The Hell With You"

Washington Magazine: Bob Novak On Valerie Plame Affair: "The Hell With You"

Hat Tip: Huffington Post:

Here’s how the Huffington Post introduced the story:

Washingtonian Magazine November 10, 2008 01:02 PM

Bob Novak has been covering politics--and making people mad--for half a century. Now battling a brain tumor, he talks about his illness, the best and worst presidents, and what he'd do differently.

Whether you like him or hate him, Robert Novak's combination of insider dope, political pronouncements, and glowering TV presence have made him a Washington institution. So the announcement in July that he was suspending his newspaper column because of a brain tumor came as a jolt. What other journalist has been tearing up the town with so much relish for the past 51 years?

I spent some time with Novak five years ago for The Washingtonian, chronicling his journey from secular Jew to devout Catholic. Somewhat to my surprise, the scowling, sardonic columnist turned out to be a peach of a subject. He gave me plenty of time in spite of his killer schedule and seemed utterly candid. No subject was off limits.


Read the whole story here.

Read the Huffington Post lead here: Huffington Post

20081110 Washington Magazine Bob Novak on Plame Affair

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

20070702 Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

July 2nd, 2007

GRANT OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Home > News & Policies > Proclamation Archives

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Hat Tip: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11658207

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

20070702 Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

July 2nd, 2007

References: Grant of Executive Clemency

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Read president's text on commuting ex-White House aide's prison sentence

Hat Tip: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570172/

July 2, 2007

President Bush's released a statement Monday sparing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term. The following is the full text of the document.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

####

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

Thursday, December 17, 1998

19981216 President Clinton explains Iraq strike

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

MORE STORIES:. Wednesday, December 16, 1998. • Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote • Clinton: Iraq has abused its final chance…

Clinton Iraq 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

####



http://www.google.com/search?q=Clinton+Iraq+1998&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


Thursday, November 19, 1998

19981117 Defenders of Clinton argue he should not be impeached

Defenders of Clinton argue he should not be impeached because he committed perjury

In Truth, Even Those Little Lies Are Prosecuted Once in a While

by William Glaberson

http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/glaberson.htm

Glaberson, William. 1998. "In Truth, Even Those Little Lies Are Prosecuted Once in a While." New York Times, November 17, 1998.

[…]

A Florida postal supervisor is in prison for denying in a civil deposition that she had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.

[…]

Defenders of President Clinton have argued that his accusers are overzealous in saying he should be impeached or subject to criminal charges on the grounds that he committed perjury when he denied in a civil deposition that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

But a review of more than 100 perjury cases in state and federal courts, and statistics on the number of perjury prosecutions brought around the country, show that people are prosecuted in America for what might be called small lies more regularly than the Clinton defenders have suggested.

With the House Judiciary Committee's hearings into the possible impeachment of the president set to begin this week. The president's defenders are expected to return to their theme. The president's lawyer, David Kendall, has said that "no prosecutor in the United States would bring a perjury prosecution on the basis" of the kinds of questions Clinton was asked about his sex life in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit.

But interviews with lawyers, legal experts and with a woman who is serving a sentence for lying about sex in a civil case show that, far from being shrugged off, the threat of prosecution for perjury, even in civil cases, is a crucial deterrent in the legal system.

"Symbolically, the sword of Damocles hangs over every perjurer's head, and no one can know whether they're the perjurer that's going to be prosecuted," said Jeffrey Abramson, a former prosecutor and an expert on jury trials who is a professor of legal studies and politics at Brandeis University.

One statistic on perjury prosecutions has been widely circulated since the president's supporters began arguing that perjury was little more than a technicality seized upon by the president's enemies: Of 49,655 cases filed by federal prosecutors last year, only 87 were for perjury.

[…]

Read the rest here – it is quite an eye opener: In Truth, Even Those Little Lies Are Prosecuted Once in a While