John Dean Blogs about Fitzgerald & Upcoming McClellan Testimony

[chill_wind]

"These folks make Nixon’s White House look like Little Leaguers – and based on what is known about the Plame investigation, I have long suspected that Fitzgerald was playing out of his league."

The Importance of Scott McClellan's Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee -- Including Possible New Obstruction of Justice Charges for Scooter Libby and Karl Rove

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, Jun. 13, 2008

Former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 20. He was invited, of course, because of his revelatory new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.

(...)

If McClellan’s testimony suggests that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, for any reason, gave Karl Rove and Dick Cheney a pass when, in fact, there was a conspiracy – which is still ongoing – to obstruct justice, then these hearings could trigger the reopening of the case. But this is a pretty large “If.”

The Evidence Necessary to Reopen the Plame Investigation: Though Special Counsel Fitzgerald Cannot Talk About the Grand Jury, Witness McClellan Can Share What His Testimony Was

Patrick Fitzgerald conducted his investigation behind closed doors. Other than Fitzgerald and his staff, no one knows what they found or did not find, because they conducted the investigation through a federal grand jury. Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has sealed this information in secrecy, and cut off any ability of Fitzgerald and his staff to talk about what occurred.

No one believes that Fitzgerald (and his team) were anything less than vigorous in investigating the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joe Wilson by revealing that his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA operative. Yet since no one knows what Fitzgerald learned, except those who cannot speak of what they know, it is not possible to determine whether he might have been outfoxed by the White House. As experienced a prosecutor as Fitzgerald is, he was playing in a very different league when investigating the Bush White House. These folks make Nixon’s White House look like Little Leaguers – and based on what is known about the Plame investigation, I have long suspected that Fitzgerald was playing out of his league. (See, for example, here and here.)

more: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080613.html

[JDPriestly]

1. I wonder whether John Dean believes that Bush can be criminally prosecuted

if the Congress has not first impeached him. As i have stated here before, I read Federalist Paper No. 65 and discussion of this issue that took place regarding Clinton's impeachment to suggest strongly that a criminal prosecution of a former president cannot take place unless the president was first impeached. I would like to have the opinion of John Dean on that issue.

[chill_wind]

3. He goes into that (somewhat) in the second article he links to in the OP

(...)

Who Can, And Who Can't, Be Indicted?

During Watergate, the Watergate Special Prosecutor did considerable research on whether or not a sitting president could be indicted. While the law is not black letter, the consensus of considered opinion is that he cannot.

First, there is the Constitutional language that appears to make impeachment and removal the only solution for presidential misconduct. There is also the point that conduct bad enough to constitute a serious crime, is likely also bad enough for impeachment -- and that, after impeachment removal, of course, an ex-president can be indicted.

On a more practical level, a president can remove any federal prosecutor who might indict him, for they all serve at his pleasure.

As for vice presidents, they can be indicted. (....)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051021.html

[JDPriestly]

11. I agree with Dean.

I think that a reading of Federalist Paper No. 65 leads to the conclusion that a court cannot hear a trial on a political crime. Only the House of Representatives has the power to bring charges against Bush for the crimes he has committed (and Cheney too) which are of a political nature in the sense that Alexander Hamilton defines the kinds of matters that warrant impeachment. Please read the entire Federalist Paper No. 65.

[seafan]

2. John Dean: Candidate Obama’s Exceptional Position on the Crimes of His Predecessor

The Importance of Scott McClellan's Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee -- Including Possible New Obstruction of Justice Charges for Scooter Libby and Karl Rove


By JOHN W. DEAN
June 13, 2008

.....

Barack Obama believes it is time for change regarding responsibility for criminal conduct at the highest levels of government – and he could act on that belief by reopening this investigation with his own people.

Candidate Obama’s Exceptional Position on the Crimes of His Predecessor

Barack Obama would truly be a president of change if he held a predecessor administration criminally liable for its misconduct. It has long been something of an unofficial standard of comity between out-going and in-coming presidents to overlook the misconduct of the previous administration. But no president is compelled to do so.

During the primaries, Obama was asked this question. His response was so striking, I have quoted it in full: “What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.”

He continued, “So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody is above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.”
Obama’s unusual and laudable perspective is why McClellan’s appearance, and the diligence of the House Judiciary Committee, are the reason that this may not be merely a matter of passing interest. If a congressional committee, like the House Judiciary Committee, develops a prima facie case that would make it appropriate for President Obama’s attorney general to fully investigate the matter. Needless to say, if we have a President McCain, the Congress happens to uncover even far more heinous crimes than obstructing justice, you can be certain that nothing would happen -- other than the Bush and Cheney team leaving government without a scratch.

Just as Richard Clarke recently said.... "We can't let these people back into polite society."

[JDPriestly]

12. I understand why Obama would rather investigate Bush and Cheney

after they are out of office. I don't think he has that choice, unfortunately. Read Federalist Paper No. 65. I drew my conclusion based on my reading of Alexander Hamilton's statements about impeachment, its function and the reasons it was delegated to the House of Representatives.

[seemslikeadream]

4. The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder






Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi talks about his book, "The Prosecution Of George W. Bush for Murder"

Stephanie Miller Show
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/files/mp3/2008_0609_bugliosi.mp3


http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1644

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Vincent Bugliosi


(Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi)

How has George Bush reacted to the hell he created in Iraq, to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the war, and to the enormous and endless suffering that the survivors of the victims -- their loved ones -- have had to endure?

I've always felt that impressions are very important in life, and other than "first impressions," they are usually right. Why? Because impressions, we know, are formed over a period of time. They are the accumulation of many words and incidents, many or most of which one has forgotten, but which are nonetheless assimilated into the observer's subconscious and thus make their mark. In other words, you forgot the incident, but it added to the impression. "How do you feel about David? Do you feel he's an honest person?" "Yeah, I do." "Why do you say that about him? Can you give me any examples that would cause you to say he's honest?" "No, not really, at least not off the top of my head. But I've known David for over ten years, and my sense is that he's an honest person."

I have a very distinct impression that with the exception of a vagrant tear that may have fallen if he was swept up, in the moment, at an emotional public ceremony for American soldiers who have died in the war, George Bush hasn't suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused by plunging this nation into the darkness of the Iraq war, probably never losing a wink of sleep over it. Sure, we often hear from Bush administration sources, or his family, or from Bush himself, about how much he suffers over the loss of American lives in Iraq. But that dog won't run. How do we just about know this is nonsense? Not only because the words he has uttered could never have escaped from his lips if he were suffering, but because no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same day or the next, and is in good spirits. How would that be possible if he was suffering? For example, the November 3, 2003, morning New York Times front-page headline story was that the previous day in Fallouja, Iraq, insurgents "shot down an American helicopter just outside the city in a bold assault that killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 others. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since the United States invaded Iraq in March." Yet later in that same day when Bush arrived for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, Alabama, he was smiling broadly, and Mike Allen of the Washington Post wrote that "the President appeared to be in a fabulous mood." This is merely one of hundreds of such observations made about Bush while the brutal war continued in Iraq.

And even when Bush is off camera, we have consistently heard from those who have observed him up close how much he seems to be enjoying himself. When Bush gave up his miles of running several times a week because of knee problems, he took up biking. "He's turned into a bike maniac," said Mark McKinnon in March of 2005, right in the middle of the war. McKinnon, a biking friend of Bush's who was Bush's chief media strategist in his 2004 reelection campaign, also told the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller about Bush: "He's as calm and relaxed and confident and happy as I've ever seen him." Happy? Under the horrible circumstances of the war, where Bush's own soldiers are dying violent deaths, how is that even possible?



Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”

Vincent Bugliosi is one of the most successful prosecutors in this country, with a record including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. With a new book, he outlines his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder.


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

.....

What I’m about to tell you, to my knowledge, has never appeared in any national newspaper or magazine in America; it may have, but to my knowledge, I’ve never heard this said before in any of the major magazines or newspapers of America. Page nine—page eight, ninety-one-page report, clearly and unequivocally says that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that he would only be a threat if he feared that America was about to attack him. In other words, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.


So we know—not “think,” but we know—that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. So if we had nothing else at all, this alone shows us that he took this nation to war on a lie, and therefore, all of the killings in Iraq of American soldiers became unlawful killings and therefore murder.


But it gets worse. October 4th, three days after the October 1st classified top-secret report, Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report, so that this report could be issued to the American people and to Congress. And this report came to be known as the “White Paper.” And in this White Paper, the conclusion of US intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted from the White Paper. Every single one of these all-important words were taken out. And the question that I have is, how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be? And yet, up to this point, unbelievably—and there’s no other word for it—he’s gotten by with all of this.

....

....the evidence is overwhelming that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law, he’s guilty of murder. And if justice means anything in America, I want you to come back with a verdict of guilty. If we’re going to become a great nation again, we cannot become a great nation—we used to be—we cannot become a great nation unless we take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

5. I heard John Dean speak this past week

and he touched on this development. He also said John McCain is morphing into G. Gordon Liddy. "For those Republicans who rant and rave about 'activist judges,' I have 3 words for them: Bush v. Gore." He spared no one. Mentioned he has a friend who jogs by Cheney's residence in D.C. every morning. Two or three times a week the friend sees a Document Destruction Service truck pulling out of his driveway. I think John Dean would make an excellent A.G. But would his past incarceration prevent that???

K&R

[chill_wind]

9. Would be awesome to hear him speak live.

"Two or three times a week the friend sees a Document Destruction Service truck pulling out of his driveway."

You can tell Dean has a sick feeling these guys are going to walk way. Both of them...

And it isn't as if he hasn't committed his late life to writing the warnings for all who would read and heed.

[defendandprotect]

6. recco

[bleever]

7. He ponders the ways Fitz was set up to fail,

by being underfunded and overworked. In 2005 he also had questions about Fitz's willingness to "bite the hand that feeds him", though I'm guessing most of those doubts have been assuaged.

[chill_wind]

8. I think he has some serious reservations. His open letter to Fitzgerald in 2005.

His writings on the subject of Fitzgerald's investigation since have seemed carefully respectful, but cautious and reserved. Even in the OP above he cites a potential conflict of interest. (BTW, I didn't know Fitzgerald was in fact a Republican and Dean goes out of his way to allude to it. I think way back, many DUers here were insisting he was an Independant.) But the conflict he refers to is here:

The result of all this is that, as a result of a breach of regulations, Patrick Fitzgerald serves in an unsupervised position with authority equal to that of the Attorney General himself - yet he is not subject to the restraints that fall upon an Attorney General. (Presumably, Alberto Gonzales will recuse himself from this matter, just as John Ashcroft did - for reasons I discussed in a prior column.)

(...)

Those Justice Department regulations had a purpose, and it was to avoid conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. Now, we are stuck with both.

An ambitious Republican U.S. Attorney like Patrick Fitzgerald was an especially poor choice for this position. As the regulations stated, an acceptable choice would have been someone truly outside the federal government.

While some local U.S. Attorney's Offices may be somewhat independent of the Department of Justice, they are hardly outside it; indeed, they typically consult the DOJ's own manual on policy questions. As a Justice Department employee, Fitzgerald had a conflict of interest - just as Ashcroft did. Yet unlike Ashcroft, he failed to recuse himself.

But this is the letter that made me not see the whole Fitzgerald-- Unquestionable Hero thing quite the same ever since..

An Open Letter To Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald From Former White House Counsel John W. Dean
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005





November 18, 2005

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Special Counsel
Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

Excuse my being so presumptuous as to send you this open letter, but the latest revelation of the testimony, before the grand jury, by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has raised some fundamental questions for me.

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004 you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information."

If, indeed, that is the major focus of your investigation, then your investigation is strikingly limited, given your plenary powers. To be a bit more blunt, in historical context, it is certainly less vigorous an investigation than those of your predecessors who have served as special counsel -- men appointed to undertake sensitive high-level investigations when the Attorney General of the United States had a conflict of interest. (Here, it was, of course, the conflict of Attorney General John Ashcroft that led to the chain of events that resulted in your appointment.)

The Teapot Dome Precedent

(read full arguments)


With all due respect, Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe you are being had. I believe that you were selected with the expectation that you would conduct the narrowest of investigations, and it seems you have done just that.

(....)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051118.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

[bleever]

10. A brilliant response by Dean

to the circumstances and actions in question at that time. No question.

It must be pointed out that Fitzgerald is not a Republican, according to any known disclosure, though he was appointed by a Republican administration.

So I don't think recusal was necessary or required.

Fitzgerald was faithful to the principles and legal strictures of his assignment as Special Counsel.

But it's an open question, still, whether or not the limitations that higher powers may have wanted to institute into his mandate will actually prove successful in having subverted justice.