Geffen's Law Enforcement Agenda?
Normally I steer clear of the political back and forth but wanted to offer a perspective on the dust up pitting the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton against that of Senator Barak Obama. Stuck in the middle is Mr. David Geffen. Maureen Dowd's column yesterday had this key observation:
They fell out in 2001, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
That boys and girls is the heart of the matter--Leonard Peltier. Peltier was convicted of murdering two FBI Agents. His conviction has spawned enormous controversy. Geffen and other fans of Peltier pushed hard to get him a pardon. President Clinton, confronted with a strong FBI counter protest, sided with law enforcement. Personally, I'm with the FBI on this but I know this is a hot button item among some in the Hollywood Hills.
I asked an FBI buddy about the Peltier matter because I did not pay much attention to it back then. He wrote:
Peltier has stated that Clinton was offered a $30 million a year job by Spielberg and Geffen to be the attorney for Dream Works. When Clinton denied Peltier’s clemency, that job went away. Understanding that Peltier has a difficult time with the truth, I don’t know how accurate Peltier’s comment is.
If Peltier was telling the truth, this means that Clinton was not willing to sell off his integrity on this issue. My buddy went on to say:
This makes for an interesting question Senator Obama has not yet answered--is he willing to pardon Leonard Peltier? If so it raises the specter of a Senator willing to bow to wealthy benefactors and will certainly raise major hackles in the law enforcement and national security community. If he says no he may face some new fund raising challenges. Let's see if anyone in the press has the stones to ask the question.The Leonard Peltier Defense Fund and similar organizations/groups have been quite active over the past decades. Likewise, the “No Parole For Peltier” organization (run by former FBI Agents) ( http://www.noparolepeltier.com/index.html ) has been very vocal in opposing his parole and in countering falsehoods spread by those who seek his parole. As you can imagine this is a very hot button issue with current and former Agents.
Peltier has many supporters in Hollywood, as well as with the more liberal associations of professionals and with Members of Congress. Some Members of Congress who have written to then President Clinton requesting clemency for Peltier include Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Jr., Constance Morella, Wyche Fowler, Edward Markey, Leon Panetta, Mickey Leland and Shirley Chisholm. The National Lawyers Guild and the United University Professions are two of the groups who also wrote to Clinton requesting clemency. Former Congressman, and former FBI Agent (UGH!!!), Don Edwards has criticized the FBI for opposing Peltier’s parole.


J. McCutchen
Three Cheers for MoDo!!!
Xpostx#
For exposing Clinton Inc for what it is.
Seems according to CNN that Hillary tried to put the arm on Obama supporters on the LA West Side.
"You can't give to every one. You must give to me."
Tell the Queen Bee the coronation's been postponed. There are no do-overs leaving the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party with no alternative but to DO the War Party Wing, beginning with Brunhilde Clinton
February 22, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mm, that can of worms sure smells good...
Would you care to elaborate on your personal views on the matter? ...or at least address the concerns with Peltier's case documented in books like Peter Matthiesson's "In the spirit of crazy horse"?
(I can understand that FBI agents, and their friends, may feel differently, but it feels a little dismissive to describe it simply as a 'hot button item in the hollywood hills')
February 22, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we (me and your FBI buddy) definitely have differing opinions on Leonard Peltier.
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!!!
It is just as much a black eye for federal law enforcement as Ruby Ridge was...and there is absolutely no reason from him to continue rotting in prison for defending himself. Contrary to law enforcement opinion, law enforcement doesn't always "get it right". Any politician who is willing to stand up for Peltier is OK in my book...
February 22, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This makes for an interesting question Senator Obama has not yet answered--is he willing to pardon Leonard Peltier? If so it raises the specter of a Senator willing to bow to wealthy benefactors and will certainly raise major hackles in the law enforcement and national security community."
The specter it raises depends on where you sit. The FBI committed all sorts of crimes (hey, just like the Bush Administration!). Maybe Peltier was railroaded, and maybe Obama could become convinced of that. You can't justly convict Peltier based on what you think of his supporters.
Max B. Sawicky
February 22, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quick Google got http://www.freepeltier.org/story.htm with this quote:
Hmmmm. Sounds to me like Clinton just might have pardoned the wrong guy. ...but on the other hand--> If the story about Spielberg trying to bribe a President of the United States with a $30,000,000 job is true, then Clinton actually COULDN'T pardon him.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't studied this case as a historian .. mostly because no political or business interest of mine ever required it (I was a ghostwriter for hire for some years, I would have written it up pro or con Peltier if anyone wanted to pay the rate), but also because even from a distance one could see that it came down to a big he said/ she said. I could believe either side, depending on my mood, and the evidence that the two or more sides bring forth.
Was the guy framed by an FBI repression operation (it would just be one of many they ran in those years) ? Then the guy should definitely be pardoned, with honors.
If there was an AIM conspiracy to kill fed. agents and Peltier was thick in it, whether or not he pulled the trigger, it becomes much more problematical ... yet Peltier's supporters could still make a case on the grounds of either/or 1) national healing, 2) FBI provocation of AIM caused them to snap and shoot back, (still a murder yet perhaps understandable and pardonable after 30 years,) 3) current ill health and unlikelihood of long survival, 4) etc., etc.
Let the evidence come forth and the arguments begin ... in a appropriate forum, of course
February 22, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 22, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you can set up a hell of a Swift Boat job on Obama should he become the nominee....
February 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
(link)
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 22, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
The other can of worms I noticed, was when Larry closed with:
Why not simply ask Barack, when did he stop beating his wife?
~OGD~
February 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that there are strong feelings on both sides (keep in jail or pardon) and that this has a political context for all Democratic candidates. It is an issue that is going to piss off someone. I would also note that it was Geffen that brought up the pardon issue, not me. Given the Clinton backstory I think it is an appropriate point to ask Obama if he has a position on the Peltier case, or do some of you folks think big dollar contributors make donations and expect nothing in return?
Ambassadorship to Haiti?
February 22, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geffen and other fans of Peltier pushed hard to get him a pardon.
I kinda take offense to calling Peltier's supporters "fans" Larry. No matter which side of this issue a person is on I would be very surprised if anyone is an admirer of the fact that a number of G-men and AIM members were killed...
February 22, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson is accusing Mr. Geffen of attempting to bribe President Clinton to obtain a pardon for a convicted felon, based solely upon the hearsay of an unnamed "FBI" agent.
Hello Mr. Johnson and Folks at TPM ... the statement is libelous and you at TPM could be sued for it.
This quote directly implies through hearsay evidence that Mr. Geffen and Spielberg attempted to bribe President Clinton with a post-presidential job on the condition of Mr. Clinton granting a pardon to Leonard Peltier. If true, Mr. Geffen and Spielberg would be guilty of attempted bribery. Mr. Johnson has no evidence of this -- but has clearly levelled the accusation through hearsay evidence. Mr. Johnson has not allowed Mr. Geffen and Spielberg or Mr. Clinton or Mr. Peltier the opportunity to rebut and give their side of the story.
This is awfully awfully close to libel.
February 22, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the case and the cause of Peltier I don't think the big $$ contributors want anything else then a pardon for him...no other strings attached. But in general if somebody is going to pony up large stacks of cash to a politico they are looking for something tangible in return in terms of personal enrichment. The Peltier case might not have been the best example to use...just mho.
And I'd have no problem with Obama and all politicos going on record regarding Peltier's continued incarceration...
February 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody's missing the point here. I don't know enough about Peltier to offer an opinion one way or the other. But there's no justifiable excuse for pardoning Rich, who traded with the enemy during a war, fled the country to avoid prosecution, and left his wife behind to worm her way up in the Clintons' circle to buy a last-minute pardon. It's the dirtiest deal the Clintons ever made, a blatant misuse of power on the way out of town, and I cannot feel sorry if a few of the money folks can't stand the stink of it, even if they do so only by comparison with someone else (Peltier).
February 22, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asking every Tom Dick and Harriet running for president a question like that is just a silly "gotcha game". In the first place 99% of the electorate have no idea who Peltier is and wouldn't remember 3 weeks after the media played it's umpteenth "we can't think of anything important to ask you" stunt. Besides, the next president stands a good chance of being in office 8 years - since pardons happen on the way out you're asking about an event that is 10 years away!!
Instead, let's ask something that is important - NOW. Why don't we ask Obama, Clinton, and ALL candidates the question: Will you extradite (extraordinary rendition style if necessary) the 25 CIA agents charged in Milan Italy with kidnapping and torture. That's a question Bush will be facing between now and Nov 2008, and he'll leave it for the next president to deal with.
I'll bet even Leonard Peltier would like to hear those answers. It's all about the same thing, the opportunity for the misuse of power when exercised in the dark by people filled with ideologic passion (FBI & AIM).
February 22, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is interesting, perhaps, but the way you made it was far more so. You used only one (clearly biased) source, and you dismissed the FBI's critics as Hollywood types.
The FBI man's quote about Geffen bribing Clinton is not only hearsay, it's SECOND-HAND HEARSAY FROM A BIASED SOURCE. Why reprint it?
I don't live in California, I make my living with my hands, and I think that the Peltier case is a travesty. If I were to write an article about it, though, I hope I would present the actual controversy more fairly than you have here.
I enjoy reading your insights regarding the intelligence community, and please keep up the good work, but you might want to take a few journalism classes at your local community college if you really want to make a go at this writing thing. I am not being sarcastic here, by the way.
February 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no. Under Times v. Sullivan, libel against a public figure requires "actual malice". Basically, they'd have to prove that Larry either knew the statement was false, or simply didn't care. It isn't enough to prove that the statement was untrue; it isn't even enough to show Larry was negligent. The bar is deliberately set very high to avoid a chilling effect on free speech - and rightly so.
February 22, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That rhetorical zinger of Larry's seemed greatly off-base and unfair to me too. There are plenty of loaded and bizarre questions one could muse out loud about with any candidate: Is Hillary committed to doing EVERYTHING AIPAC wants, or only 90%?
Your response was perfect.
Jan Knaus
February 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, before there was a Peltier case, there was another trial, that of Russell Means and Dennis Banks, in St. Paul Federal District Court. At the time, I had several students who were volunteering through AIM to be gophers for the trial attorney -- the famous William Kunstler, and through them, I got a prized court room ticket for a day when Kunstler would be cross examining one of the FBI witnesses. My own interest was largely to see the famous Kunstler in action.
I was lucky -- it was the day Kunstler utterly destroyed the agent on the stand -- had both him and the prosecution lawyers in tears. In the end, Federal Judge Fred Nicholl put an end to the agent's misery by dismissing the charges and writing an opinion documenting gross misconduct on the part of the FBI.
Much of the FBI's passion has less to do with Peltier than it does with this dismissal, and the evidence the Judge published regarding FBI's gross misconduct. A number of careers were ended or diminished as a result. Apparently there is much evidence the FBI never really got over all this.
The AIM, Banks and Means trial in St. Paul took place at about the same time the Church Committee uncovered the Hoover Era Cointell project in the FBI -- and one window into that was this trial, as AIM was one of the Cointell targets. Walter Mondale as a member of the Church Committee did some additional investigative work regarding what had been learned in Judge Nicholl's Courtroom, and I believe it is in the Church Committee report.
By the way, Robert Redford made a movie about all this, with himself as narrator. Geffen is not the only Hollywood type with a long interest.
February 22, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amnesty is good at checking these things out. Larry, any comments on the case aside from what you've said already?
Tom
February 22, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Geffen stupidly resurrects the Lincoln Bedroom canard to attack Clinton, Clinton's defenders attack the "Hollywood liberals," and the Republicans laugh all the way to the White House yet again.
Is there any group of stupider, more self destructive people on the face of the earth than the modern day leftists in the United States? Anywhere?
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
February 22, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... modern day leftists..."
All people to the left of center in the US are stupid and self-destructive? Is this opposed to the Bush supporters who are brilliant and helping to save us by their ingenious venture in Iraq? I think not.
Tom
February 22, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I appreciate the backstory! This was a good post and I would hope that my colleagues would agree with that irrespective of their views on Peltier. I hadn't even thought about the guy for years, but it sheds a new light on recent events.
February 22, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mgmax said: "But there's no justifiable excuse for pardoning Rich . . . "
Not sure about that but Henry Waxman elicited sworn testimony from Cheney's chief of staff that every one of the reasons cited by President Clinton were justified.
February 22, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you please.
The Bush people are policy fuckups, but they are bright enough not to perpetuate negative stereotypes about their own side. You don't see Republicans attacking each other for favoring the rich, for example, or attacking each other for being too corporate friendly, or being too religious. That sort of electoral cannibalism is left to the left. As it were.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
February 22, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Cheney said it, TPMCafe believes it, that settles it?
February 22, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who call me stupid are not on my side.
February 22, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But there's no justifiable excuse for pardoning Rich . . . "
Actually there is.
The govt had a civil case against Rich. It was just a matter of collecting money. Prosecutors turned it into a criminal case after a massive witchunt.
Sounds familiar? Pretty much what Starr did.
Peltier case was about murder of FBI agents.
February 22, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
the FBI is only notionally a law enforcement entity. principally it is the amerikan stasi - the federal government's secret police.
if any of you care to learn more about how our stasi fucked up the american indian movement, i recommend to you the recently published bit of superb investigative reporting by steve hendricks.
THE UNQUIET GRAVE: THE FBI AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF INDIAN COUNTRY.
leonard peltier is a political prisoner.
and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fascist bastid.
and marc rich and his confederate pincas green were and are international gangsters. there are many of us who have studied rich who believe that he is an active mossad-maffiyah zionist asset. that he is as close as you can get to a contemporary meyer lansky.
the only coherent study of the rich-green crime syndicate is the 1985 book by craig copetas...
METAL MEN: MARC RICH AND TEH 10-BILLION DOLLAR SCAM.
these two books will educate you on topics about which you may really know nothing.
February 22, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As demonstrated by the threat in the post to which you replied.
February 22, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no. Under Times v. Sullivan, libel against a public figure requires "actual malice". Basically, they'd have to prove that Larry either knew the statement was false, or simply didn't care. It isn't enough to prove that the statement was untrue; it isn't even enough to show Larry was negligent. The bar is deliberately set very high to avoid a chilling effect on free speech - and rightly so.
---
Joshua -- You are right. Actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth is the test established for public figures in Times v. Sullivan. If TPM leaves this post up any longer it will meet the Times v. Sullivan standard for public figures.
This is why this entire post needs to be pulled off TPM now. To leave this post up after tonight will be actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. TPM has now been notified on its own site.
I am writing this only to protect TPM and Mr. Johnson from a potential libel lawsuit.
Thanks.
February 22, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, those "questions" about Romney being a Mormon are lefty "questions" are they?
February 22, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we should avoid politics by "gotcha". I am beginning to think that the whole issue about Hillary and her vote for the war resolution has turned out to be nothing more than "gotcha". Folks know how she voted, folks know that she has declined to apologize, and now what else does a Democrat voting in the primaries need to know? If her refusal to apologize is something people cannot handle, then Barack and Edwards and many others seem like darn good alternatives. Indeed, if Hillary is nominated then one can vote for Ralph Nader or some other third-party candidate, or the GOP candidate for that matter.
Is there anyone out there on TPM who has not made up his or her mind about Hillary's vote in 2002 and Hillary's refusal to apologize since that time? I'd truly be surprised.
I think that people have enough to say "gotcha" thirty times over with respect to Hillary. What now?
February 22, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did somebody just open an icebox? I feel a slight chill.
February 22, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I greatly enjoy your writing but you need to have this entire post pulled off the TPM site. It is extremely libelous. You have asserted and implied that David Geffen may have offered President Clinton a very lucrative post-presidential job in exchange for him pardoning a convicted felon. By saying this you have directly implied that Mr. Geffen may have committed a federal felony. You have no evidence to support this allegation. Mr. Geffen has not been arrested or charged with this offense. This is a textbook case of libel.
This is no different than quoting an unnamed FBI agent who says that Mr. Geffen attempted to hire a hit man to murder a business associate. You cannot say it by word, in print, or on a website. It is libel.
I urge you to take this entire thread off TPM now.
Thanks.
February 22, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev -- this is not a joke. you cannot imply or suggest somebody has committed a felony. that is libel. it's got nothing to do with "chilling." it's the law.
February 22, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we don't please and as it weren't (wasn't?).
Thanks for contributing mindless drivel to the CAFE.
Tom
February 22, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank heavens Mr. Johnson need not rely on lawyers setting forth the kind of legal analysis you have just offered--in at least three separate posts. For starters, the length of time that TPM's post is up is absolutely immaterial with respect to the issue of whether Mr. Geffen is a public figure under Sullivan. At most, it would only be relevant on the issue of damages if Mr. Johnson could ever be found to have engaged in libelous conduct. And, thanking heavens for Sullivan, I submit to you my friend that there ain't no libel around these parts.
Leaving aside your peculiar legal analysis, the tenor of your approach to Mr. Johnson suggests that you would fit in well with all of the great chillers of speech in American history. You'll certainly have a lot of company; people have been blanching at the notion of free speech since the time of our founding.
February 22, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doug:
I would think it would be appropriate at this point for you to withdraw the type of chilling allegations you have made against Mr. Johnson. I would also think that anyone who cares about free speech, whether they are disgusted with Mr. Johnson's post or not, would similarly invite Doug to withdraw his chilling posts.
Mr. Johnson probably, and rightfully so, doesn't give a hoot about your silly notices and cautions, but I would worry about someone coming on here, expressing an unpopular opinion in the form of accuasation, and then being stifled by the likes of a regular poster like you Doug.
That, Doug, would truly be a shame. Fortunately, since it involves someone in Mr. Johnson's shoes, it's just eye-opening and scary.
February 22, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink