Plame Update: Hearing Postponed
My rather lengthy post on the Plame matter generated many responses, and there is one issue I do want to address briefly, namely the concern that a Congressional investigation could compromise a potential prosecution. Some on this blog raised concerns that a potential Congressional investigation into this issue could imperil Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation if witnesses are granted immunity for testifying. I share that concern, but even if my Resolution of Inquiry were to pass the House and the White House and the federal agencies targeted by the Resolution responded in the specified 14 days, hearings would take time to arrange and not be necessary for sometime, if ever.
The basic point is that Congress has a responsibility to equip and to provide protections for those whom we ask to take risks for our national security. That responsibility is distinct from and not seconday to the judicial responsibility to determine culpability and to enjoin or punish those who would violate our laws. So, Congress has work to do and hearings to hold whether or not prosecutor Fitzgerald completes his investigation and indicts individuals.
Rush Holt, I am your biggest fan! (I camped out all week in the rain in front of the record store to get front row seats for your last tour. Okay, maybe not... but still, I'm a fan.)
Please keep talking about the Plame inquiry. I am grateful to have your voice pressing this issue.
Just wanted to say that a couple of things I love about you are your Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, and also your attention to the importance of foreign language study to national security. Both are examples of the kinds of critical but often overlooked issues that it's easy for politicians to not do anything about -- or to not do anything systemically meaningful about -- but you have not taken good government over what is easy, and we are all better off for it.
If you happen to get a chance to touch on either of these issues during your stay here, I think that would be great, although I recognize that there are other issues rightly at the forefront of everyone's minds right now.
September 7, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, I meant to say, "but you have taken good government over what is easy"...
September 7, 2005 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Congress has work to do and hearings to hold whether or not prosecutor Fitzgerald completes his investigation and indicts individuals.
Seriously, that is very reassuring. I was being bothered by the thought the Plame outing scandal would just fade from the public's attention. Too much is at stake to let this fade. Thanks Rush!!!
September 7, 2005 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an essentially political crime like the Plame leak or Iran/Contra, I think that grants of immunity should be handed out like shwag at a trade show. The reason is that it's far more important to establish an accurate historical record than it is to throw people in jail.
Let's put it another way. Would you prefer to see Rove rot in jail or see an *undeniable* historical record that shows exactly how we were led us into this war?
You could compare this approach to the Truth Commissions in South Africa and Argentina. Fewer people went to jail, but the culture was healthier as a result because everyone *knew* what happened. And given Republicans incredible ability to create alternate realities, I think we would be better off with a real history.
--Dan
September 7, 2005 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
dbs
Is this anything like Iran-Contra having an "an *undeniable* historical record" ?? Look around at North, Poindexter and others. Yes, there's the historical record, but it shamelessly does not matter to these people. To me, Karl Rove and others in jail cells as a means to establish the historical record has a lot more appeal to me.
dc
September 8, 2005 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In '86, Republican strategists certainly saw Iran/Contra as a major catastrophe with potentially long term damage to their electoral fortunes. But they successfully played out the clock with minimal losses, protected their president *and* vice president and won the next election.
Some of the few convictions that Lawrence Walsh managed to secure were overturned on appeal. And, yes, he was hampered by congressional grants of immunity. But why he was going after a minor player like Oliver North still baffles me.
So today if you say the words "Iran/Contra" to a Republican they'll either roll their eyes or smirk. And why not? Where is Eliot Abrams today? Didn't Oliver North come within a whisker of becoming a United States Senator?
Which brings us to the Plame leak case. Seeking jail time just takes too much time before the public's attention turns elsewhere. Every day I wake up hoping that Fitzgerald will indict somebody. Did he do it before the 2004 elections? Will he do it this year? It's been a while now...
With the Truth Commission approach you get a free pass if you spill the beans. All of them. But you're still on the hook, and facing an *accumulating* public record that can be used against you if you don't spill the beans. Lying is also a very bad idea. In both South Africa and Argentina some very bad actors gave testimony they would *never* have given in a criminal trial because they had no choice.
Basically, my position is that the perfect is the enemy of the good and I would rather see the conservative movement's reputation crushed because that would be far better for the culture. Forcing them to admit their crimes is far more important than making some bit players like Scooter Libby serve a few years in Lompoc.
Remember. They started a war on a pack of lies and thousands of people have died, many more thousands are injured or mamed, billions of dollars are wasted and America's standing in the world is greatly damaged. And throwing Scooter Libby in jail will somehow balance that?
--Dan
September 8, 2005 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So they have swung the Democrats by their nose yet again!!
If any of you Democrats have any balls, you will proceed with the investigation and enquiry, ignoring the absence of the Republicans. If anyone does not appear, then just as they publicly castigated George Galloway (with the complicity of some "Democrats"), condemn those in no uncertain terms. Issue your final report with the evidence you can muster and make it public from every rooftop in the US and the world.
It takes two to tango. At the moment, it appears that the Republicans like tango-ing by themselves while the Democrats are waiting for Godot!!
September 7, 2005 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon my skeptism but hasn't this administration taken countless possibly illegal actions that are deemed inadmissable by a technicality. I not only fear nothing will be done, I anticipate nothing will come of this at the same time. I'm sorry Rush but my confidence in Congress is nil. I loathe Congress and this administration. Once again, sorry for my bias.
September 7, 2005 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Holt:
The Plame/Rove investigation is the first example of what I would refer to as "legitimate justice" since Bush took office. How many disasters have to take place on their watch before people realize that they are not qualified to govern? This administration has politicized everything, and we as a nation are weaker because of it. However, from everything I have read (and I have read everything I can find) concerning Patrick Fitzgerald, he is the real deal: a modern day Elliott Ness.
He is exactly what the Bush administration fears most, because they rely wholly on cronyism, corruption, graft, intimidation, fear, and deception to promote their agenda. Fitzgerald is the dictionary definition of a loose cannon for this administration in that he has plenary power and a seemingly non-partisan approach to law enforcement.
I appreciate that we still have elected officials who are willing to pursue the subjects the powers-that-be would just as soon see swept under the carpet. Please keep up the good work and try to prevent the malignant tumor that is the Bush GOP from consuming our nation and destroying 200 years of progress.
September 7, 2005 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
<img border="0" src="http://bambooshed.com/Less Safe.jpg">
September 8, 2005 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, just doin' my once in a blue moon "hidden comments" patrol and uprating you out of troll stigma. But learn the IMG tag doesn't work here (good thing IMHO and wouldn't it be nice to be able to delete/edit comments for this kind of situation?).
October 7, 2005 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Rep. Holt,
I appreciate the fine work you, Rep. Pallone and most of the other Dems do for us here in New Jersey.
I applaud your accepting this blog week to interact with us.
I also applaud your commitment to sunshine to cleanse government.
Could you please talk about what you know about this startling news from the Schott report that the federal government's secret interferences in the stock market endangers our credibility as a "capitalist" or "free market" nation?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050906/65371.html
It sounds like we teeter on the edge of Muscellini-style fascism, or maybe we already are there and are being duped.
Perhaps you are in a position to discuss this with Sen. Corzine, who has extraordinary business experience as former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Thanks.
September 8, 2005 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that was Sprott report, not Schott.
And, here is the pdf file of the actual report:
www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf
September 8, 2005 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. Holt,
Thank you for your continuing interest in the Plame investigation. It is much needed.
On a different note, I am aware that you have taken interest in the issue of electronic voting machines.
I am amazed that more Democrats do not see the dangers in having our votes counted by private corporations. The machines are, at best, chronicly defective and vulnerable to renegade hacking. At worst, there is massive and organized fraud occurring in America today.
But, leaving aside any specific races, Americans simply cannot have faith in the current system. In my opinion, Americans not only have a right to vote, they have a right to have confidence that their vote will be counted. Today that latter right is not being protected.
Perhaps you could address this issue in a future post. I would be particularly interested to hear what other Democrats are saying about voting machines. Frankly, I find it amazing that politicians would put in the long hours of fundraising and campaigning only to expose themselves to the risk of having the race stolen away.
September 8, 2005 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Congressman Holt,
If you are as serious about the Plame scandal, as I hope you are, then please put an end to the baloney involving the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act! It's a Red Herring, is far more difficult to prosecute and has lower penalties than the controlling statutes. The facts already publically known indicate that Karl Rove and Lewis Libby have in fact violated Title 18, Sections 793 and Title 18, Section 794. Just failing to report a negligent disclosure is a violation under Section 793.
It is all spelled out in the Non-Disclosure agreement that Karl Rove and Lewis Libby have violated:
"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982."
http://contracts.qsa.gov/webforms.nsf/%200/03A78F16A522716785256A 69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf
The standards for conviction merely relate to harming the public defense and there is no covert requirement of Plame for the violations to be punishable. In war time, violation of Title 18, Section 794(b) merits death. In US versus Morison, the court ruled that giving this type of inforamation to the press, is the same as giving it to an enemy. The Morison precedent also established that for all practical purposes, intent was irrevelant
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000 793----000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000 794----000-.html
In Morison, the court ruled:
"Finally, the danger to the United States is just as great when this information is released to the press as when it is released to an agent of a foreign government. The fear in releasing this type of information is that it gives other nations information concerning the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States. That fear is realized whether the information is released to the world at large or whether it is released only to specific spies."
http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Elburriss/morison.html
The Intent requirement was reinforced by the Court in Morison, when they cited US v. Dedeyan:
“…although there is an intent requirement, the "delimiting" intent to injure the United States is not present in this statute and defendant argues that it is therefore impermissibly vague. Unfortunately for the defendant's argument, the Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue and found that a similar statute was not unconstitutionally vague.”
Please Representative Holt, follow up on what I've given you. In my book, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby have comitted TREASON!
September 8, 2005 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink