Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rep Nadler speaks out on his call to Fitzgerald to expand investigation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:39 PM
Original message
Rep Nadler speaks out on his call to Fitzgerald to expand investigation
Edited on Thu Oct-27-05 04:48 PM by understandinglife
Tip of the Iceberg

By Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)

From: TPMCafe Special Guests

Last night I went on Hannity and Colmes to talk about my recent call to expand the Fitzgerald investigation to look at a possible White House conspiracy to deceive Congress. Mr. Hannity wanted to make a big joke out of my contention that the CIA leak issue is "only the tip of the iceberg." But I'm quite serious.

Many around Washington are expecting indictments to be handed down tomorrow on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are serious crimes; make no mistake. But I think the real question before America is this: were the actions in question part of a larger, deliberate, effort to quash dissent and march the country into war? That's why I've called for the Special Counsel's investigation to be expanded.

Specifically, I've asked that Mr. Fitzgerald seek answers to three pressing questions: whether the CIA leak incident was part of a larger, deliberate effort to deceive Congress into authorizing war in Iraq, who exactly was involved, and whether any of their actions were criminal. If a larger, intentional effort was indeed underway - as evidence is tending to show that it was - that amounts to a criminal conspiracy.

More at the link and discussion comments:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/27/17276/403



Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Fitzgerald Contraction happens near light speed
I guess the Expansion happens pretty slowly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Rep Nadler: Fitzgerald Must Broaden Investigation (letter and more)
Edited on Thu Oct-27-05 04:47 PM by understandinglife
Nadler: Fitzgerald Must Broaden Investigation

“Did the Bush Administration deliberately mislead Congress about the war?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In light of recent developments in the CIA leak investigation and other recent revelations, Congressman Jerrold Nadler today called for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include a criminal investigation to examine whether the President, the Vice President, and members of the White House Iraq Group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq.

“The CIA leak issue is only the tip of the iceberg,” Congressman Nadler said. “This is looking increasingly like a White House conspiracy aimed at misleading our country into war – in part by manufacturing now-refuted evidence in support of its rationale, in part by smearing and silencing critics, and in part by manipulating media complicity. There is mounting evidence that there may have been a well-orchestrated effort by the President, the Vice President, and other top White House officials to lie to Congress in order to get its support for the Iraq War.”

It is a crime to lie to Congress under several federal statutes. Congressman Nadler requested that Special Counsel Fitzgerald follow the leads he has already discovered and broaden his investigation to include charges of lying to Congress. In his letter to Acting Deputy Attorney General McCallum asking for a broadening of Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s investigation, Nadler cited the President’s infamous reference to African Uranium in the 2003 State of the Union Address, reports of the White House Iraq Group’s singular mission to sell the war at all costs, assertions made in the “Downing Street Memo,” and reporters’ own accounts of media manipulation.

“Honest, if mistaken, reliance on faulty intelligence to convince Congress to authorize a war is bad enough,” Congressman Nadler wrote in his letter to McCallum. “But, if, as mounting evidence is tending to show, Administration officials deliberately deceived Congress and the American people, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy against the entire country.”

“We are no longer just talking about a Republican culture of corruption and cronyism,” Nadler added. “We now have reason to believe that high crimes may have been committed at the highest level, wrongdoing that may have led us to war and imperiled our national security.”

Congressman Nadler demanded answers to the following questions in his letter to McCallum:

Was the CIA leak incident merely one part of a larger illegal effort by the Administration to deceive Congress about a matter of war and peace?

Who was involved?

Were any of their actions criminal?

The text of Congressman Nadler’s letter to Deputy Attorney General McCallum follows:

October 20, 2005

Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
Room 4111
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General McCallum:

I urge you to use the powers granted to you, under the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice in June of 1999, to expand the framework of the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

It is now clear that the key reason cited by the Bush Administration – the imminent acquisition by Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction – to persuade Congress and the American people of the necessity of invading Iraq was not true. There is new and mounting and evidence, stemming in part from the current investigation, that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress. Since Special Counsel Fitzgerald is already investigating the CIA leak, it seems appropriate that he be empowered to expand his investigation to examine whether the leak itself was part of a broader conspiracy knowingly to mislead Congress into authorizing a war.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee who opposed the extension of the independent counsel law, I do not take this matter lightly. I believe these types of investigations should be reserved for only the most serious of alleged crimes, but I have to believe that lying to Congress in order to obtain its support for a war meets that test.

Some of the evidence that members of the Bush Administration may have deliberately, and, therefore, illegally, misled Congress is as follows:

1) We now know that during the summer of 2002, at a time when the White House maintains that no decision had been made about going to war, the Bush Administration created the “White House Iraq Group” whose sole purpose appears to have been to market and sell a decision to go to war to Congress. It appears that this group specifically sought to deceive Congress about the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. (New York Daily News, Oct. 19, 2005.)

2) We now know from the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” that it appeared to senior members of the British Government who had conferred with senior Administration officials, that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” (Emphasis added.)

3) We now know that President Bush included in his State of the Union Address in January of 2003 an already discredited reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger.

4) We now know from Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s investigation itself that there was an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who attempted to tell the truth about some of the faulty “evidence” used by the White House to make its case for war. Although Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation has yet to determine whether a crime was committed by any Administration official(s) in leaking the identity of Wilson's wife as a covert CIA operative, it is abundantly clear that the White House Iraq Group was engaged in an effort to discredit revelations of the falsity of the Administration’s justifications for the war, and to intimidate and punish those who would reveal the truth. According to sources quoted by the New York Daily News, this group of White House officials was “so determined . . . to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims.” (New York Daily News, October 19, 2005.)

5) We now know that top Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, misrepresented to the media the scope and nature of what the U.S. intelligence community knew and didn’t know about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the war. (Newsweek.com, Oct. 19, 2005.) Manufacturing of media complicity, if achieved through a deliberate plan to provide false information, would have played a key role in misleading Congress. And indeed, we need to know more about the relationship between Administration officials and certain media outlets in view of details emerging from this investigation regarding the special access to Administration officials and, perhaps, to potentially classified information afforded to Judith Miller of The New York Times, which led to clearly erroneous stories supporting the Administration’s false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


With this growing body of evidence that the White House may have deliberately misled Congress into authorizing war, a broader independent investigation is clearly necessary.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald has done a great service to the nation thus far by investigating the CIA leak, but real questions remain. Was the CIA leak incident an effort to enforce discipline as part of a much broader criminal conspiracy by members of the Bush Administration to deceive Congress about a matter of war and peace? Who was involved? Were any of their actions criminal?

These questions go to the core of the functioning of democratic self-government in the United States. Honest, if mistaken, reliance on faulty intelligence to convince Congress to authorize a war is bad enough. But, if, as mounting evidence is tending to show, Administration officials deliberately deceived Congress and the American people, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy against the entire country.

It is self-evident that the Administration cannot investigate itself in this matter. I therefore urge you to expand the Special Counsel’s investigation to include these matters crucial to our national security and national integrity.

I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler
Member of Congress


Link:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/FitzgeraldwarMemo102005.html



Peace.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thank you for posting. Rep. Maurice Hinchey of NY has also called
on Fitzgerald to extend the investigation. He was on Countdown last night discussing it with Keith Olbermann.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/102505fitzgeraldinvestigation.html

For Immediate Release
October 25, 2005
Hinchey Renews Push For Expansion Of
Fitzgerald's CIA Name Leak Investigation

Calls For Special Prosecutor To Look At Reason For Name Leak;
Says Bush Administration Sought To Discredit Valerie Plame's Husband
For Coming Forth With Evidence That Disproved WMD Claims

Kingston, NY - With indictment decisions likely to be announced this week in Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of who in the Bush Administration leaked the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame to the news media, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today renewed his call for an expansion of that probe to include the motive behind the name leak.

"It is imperative that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald look into not only who exposed Valerie Plame's identity, but also what the motive was for doing so," Hinchey said. "Getting to the bottom of who revealed Ms. Plame's covert identity is only scratching the surface of a much larger and significant story. All of the evidence points to a detailed attempt to discredit Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, since he was going public with firsthand information that disproved the Bush Administration's claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. I'm confident that a thorough investigation of why Valerie Plame's identity was revealed will lead to substantive charges against top Administration officials for lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Last month, Hinchey led a group of 40 House members calling on Fitzgerald to expand the scope of his investigation to include the motive behind exposing Plame's identity. With indictments widely expected this week, Hinchey and his colleagues are renewing their push for Fitzgerald to examine any criminal violations that the White House may have committed by falsifying intelligence about Iraq.

Between January 20 and January 29, 2003, the Administration made a series of claims - which are now known to be false - that Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. These claims were at the very core of the president's final justification for war, and apparently were made despite broad internal disagreement over their veracity. Joseph Wilson then exposed the Administration's lies in his New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003. The desire to discredit Ambassador Wilson is the nearly-universally accepted motive behind the leaking of his wife's identity.

Since it is against the law to lie to Congress, it is fully possible that the Bush Administration's claims of an Iraq-Niger connection were illegal -- especially given the venues at which the claims were delivered (including President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address before Congress). That fact, when combined with the link between the Administration's behavior and the subsequent exposure of Ms. Wilson (Valerie Plame), is sufficient justification for Mr. Fitzgerald to expand his efforts.

"The American people's confidence in the integrity of their government is what is ultimately at stake with this investigation," Hinchey said. "President Bush repeatedly used the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as his primary justification for the need to invade Iraq. The disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity has the ability to unravel this elaborate scheme by the Bush Administration to invent the weapons of mass destruction excuse for war. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald owes it to the nation to take this investigation as far as he needs to so that the American people know the whole truth."

With the grand jury scheduled to expire on October 28, Fitzgerald has the ability to either ask the presiding judge to extend the term of the grand jury or to use a new grand jury to examine further charges, including ones against Bush Administration officials for false uranium claims.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Wow!! you're quick. I was just preparing to post a link to exactly this!!
Thank you!!! :yourock:


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. lol! My pleasure!!!! Peace :) eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Other questions
Ask whether the CIA leak incident was part of a larger, deliberate effort to deceive the public by controlling the press.

Ask whether the CIA leak incident was part of a larger, deliberate effort to suppress and ennervate the CIA itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. One can only imagine Rep Nadler's reaction to Muray Waas' latest:
As Jane Hamsher at firedoglake stated:

Boy when it comes to treason these clowns make Aldrich Ames look like a piker.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/wheels-are-coming-off.html


In response to:

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

Link:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1027nj1.htm

Related DU thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1882390


So, when is Cheney gonna call good ol' buddie Pat Roberts and urge emergency legislation to ban capital punishment .... just wondering ...


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Just don't run next time Ralph. Don't do it. Apologize for 2000. Say
you regret it. Say that the neocons & the Rove WH are worse than any Democractic Leadership that you could imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. ROFL!!! We can only hope, but, I think Ralph lost track of reality ...
.... back in the early 70s.

Good for you though -- if he's going to say anything, he should begin with a simple sentence apology to not just our fellow Americans but to humanity.


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Solely because the humaity if encased as outside of him - included
people who still loved other human beings and were there to fight for their middle class experience. And their powerless experience. I mean - globalism happened. And it was the first - albeit dirtty - time that peoplle who had nothing had a chance. Not that they got with American corporations.. but that they had democracies and choice and choices about how they would meet globalism....and that included nationalism of industries until credit within the country itself was good enough and subsidized enough to make the country a go go go. Like what all slavery & industrial monopolies did to create wealth in a country - for most places in the world just really a geographic hiccup - what made America and all European nations... float on capital...

Wish Nader was more into that. Cause that is what made Korea or Japan or anything....

So sorry he just doesn't care.

So sorry he looks at seatbelts in cars and sees that as a pass unto priviledge. When actually, priviledge comes from industry being country sentric.

And though that does not benefit American industry quickly - it makes for places then in the end - buy coke... instead of just the sailors on the American tankers..buying coke.

Wish Nader was a little more open.

Wish he saw the "opportunity" of people in places having control - instead of denying the whole globalism thing alltoogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. hell ralph took money from the cons in 2004!
he was on their payroll..and i am not kidding about it!!

he was into their pockets big time!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-05 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I know. He was encased in Amber, the neocons were encased in amber.
In reality, Nader should have realized how scary "Amber" was in the hands of adolescents.

The neos, & Rovebots, just diminish all our heroes. That is what they do. They make anyone who is a threat - look pathetic.

Nader is too naive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Rep Nadler calls for expansion of Fitzgerald's investigation - WMD lies."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Has any news outlet dovetailed the DSM with Traitorgate yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC