Robert Scheer: Libby Trial: Smoking Gun for Impeachment?

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/47477/

Libby Trial: Smoking Gun for Impeachment?

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted February 1, 2007.

The Libby case testimony, centered on the chicanery of the vice president, certainly suggests that impeachable offenses occurred at the highest level of the White House.


Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones. Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.

How then is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust? That is the question that arises from early revelations in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

This case's importance lies not in the narrow charge that Libby committed perjury in testifying about his role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Wilson; that was merely one facet of a far-ranging plot to deceive Congress and the public about perhaps the most important issue of our time: the prospect of terrorists obtaining a weapon of mass destruction.

The infamous 16-word State of the Union claim by President Bush that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had sought to obtain enriched uranium from the African country of Niger was known to be based on fraudulent documents at the time Bush used this and other false evidence to make his case for war.

The Libby case testimony, centered on the chicanery of the vice president, certainly suggests that impeachable offenses occurred at the highest level of the White House. Just how conscious the president was of the deceits conducted under his authority, what he knew and when he knew it, is precisely what an impeachment trial would determine.

more...

[GOTV]

1. "suggests that impeachable offenses occurred"

What, from this administration, doesn't suggest that impeachable offenses have occurred?

[aquart]

2. I know. I know.

Is it possible that he's done something that is NOT impeachable? Anything?

[kimmerspixelated]

3. It's like, HELLO????

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS NOW!!!! before it is too late.

[Richard Steele]

4. So what's one more? Just toss it on the pile.

We've got more "smoking guns" than could ever possibly be used.
What we need is the WILL to stand up and demand that the LAW
be obeyed.

[babylonsister]

5. If any of the bozos in Congress read, either articles like this

or their e-mails and petitions, they've got to know how we all feel. What the hell are they waiting for?:grr:

[Jack Rabbit]

6. We've heard enough this week to impeach Cheney several times over

Can there be any doubt that he was involved up to his eyeballs?

While Fitzgerald's end of the case focuses on Cheney, the defense has more than hinted that they will attempt to shift the blame to Karl Rove. Of course, that leads to you-know-who.

You-know-who is also involved in this mess. Secretly "declassifying" secrets for no other reason than to give legal cover to a hatchet job operation sounds like an abuse of power to me. Am I the only one who thinks so?