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')

"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

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

But you can set up a hell of a Swift Boat job on Obama should he become the nominee....

~

The other can of worms I noticed, was when Larry closed with:

This makes for an interesting question Senator Obama has not yet answered--is he willing to pardon Leonard Peltier?

~OGD~

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...

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...

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

All people to the left of center in the US are stupid and self-destructive?

As you please.

Is this opposed to the Bush supporters who are brilliant and helping to save us by their ingenious venture in Iraq?

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

People who call me stupid are not on my side.

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.

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.

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?

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.

As we don't please and as it weren't (wasn't?).

Thanks for contributing mindless drivel to the CAFE.

Tom

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.

and marc rich and his confederate pincas green were and are international gangsters.

They may well be. I could probably say that about a lot of billionaries. That doesn't change the merits of the case against him. It was a civil case.

if any of you care to learn more about how our stasi fucked up the american indian movement,

Peltier may be innocent. That said no president can pardon someone who has been convicted of killing two FBI agents.  He would need some cover, some credible evidence showing innocence. And if it is not there he can't issue a pardon.

firstly, it wasn't a civil case. criminal tax evasion. criminal fraud. criminal contempt of court. etc etc. without the clinton pardon, had rich ever been busted and returned to the usa, he was facing criminal verdicts that would have put him in prison for the remainder of his natural life.

as to peltier, his trial was a misprision. though he may have been convicted, the real murderers of the FBI agents were other FBI agents. friendly fire.

study the history of the FBI versus AIM. it has a lot in common with FBI versus the black panther party, the FBI versus the socialist worker party, etc ad infinitum.

That's just silly. Has it occurred to you he could have pardoned him and declined the 30 mil?

The possible employment of President Clinton was reported in mid-2000:

“A reporter asked the president about previous stories suggesting he might work for Dreamworks, the Hollywood movie studio, when he leaves office. He said the only thing he knows about that report is what he's read in the newspaper.”

CNN, May 26, 2000

Some have guessed that post-President Bill will take an exec spot at DreamWorks. Eszterhas doesn't. “Reagan learned all about the presidency through Hollywood,” he says. “Bill Clinton may be just the reverse. But I don't think he'll end up with the black Dodge Ram and David Geffen's masseur and the girl with the nipple ring waiting for him at the end of the day. I certainly don't wish that upon him.”

The quote is from Joe Eszterhas

Time, July 24, 2000

point being that Cheney's Chief of Staff has no apparent reason to say such a thing about Clinton who I assume is a political adversary unless he believed it to be true.

Why don't you run for office. Lets see you play "above the fray", like Obama claims he is going to do. I want to see how well you do. The other thing is, the media isn't interested in policy debate. It's a dog and pony show. When do policy debates fit into 30 second sound bites?

He may well believe it. I believe that lining Marc Rich up against a wall and shooting him would have been too good for him, since what he did helped a regime holding American citizens hostage.

But then I'm one of those folks silly enough to believe that Tehran has been at war with us since 1979, whether we can be bothered to notice or not.

a talk on the pine ridge story can be found here....

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/CHUW002.shtml

bslev -- you obviously do not know libel law. I am trying to protect Mr. Johnson and TPM, LLC. You cannot accuse someone in print or on-line of committing a felony unless they have actually been arrested, arraigned, indicted, convicted or sentenced. Attempting to bribe a federal official for a pardon is a federal felony offense. Look it up.

Cheers.

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 passion of the FBI probably has more to do with the execution-style killing of its wounded agents by someone in AIM than what happened in court. 

Forgetting the legal ins and outs, Johnson's charge is the moral, even if not technical, equivalent of libel, and I don't think TPM should traffic in it. It's at least triple hearsay: Johnson, whom we will call "A" admits he does not know the truth of his accusation. His source is a "friend" of Johnson's (let's call him "B"), who says that Peltier told "B" that Dreamworks offered Clinton a $30m job in the context and tied it in someway to a Peltier pardon. How on earth would Peltier possibly know that, sitting in jail and not at meetings between Dreamworks people and Clinton. Peltier would only "know" that, if someone, "C" told Peltier. And if that person, "C" was not privy to the conversation, but heard it from someone else, we're know in quadruple hearsay territory and so forth.

Mgmax - if you don't know this, the readers should: Cheney's chief of staff was Scooter Libby, who was Marc Rich's lawyer. Of course Libby, as lawyer to Rich, would testify that Rich deserved a pardon. I agree with the main post that the Rich pardon is the most egregious act Clinton ever took. It reeks to highest heaven. Rich was underserving not only based on his personal attributes (fleeing justice, etc.), but in his business conduct he was an extreme union buster who used every trick in the book to screw a bunch of steel workers in North Carolina. Clinton would never give a guy like that the time of day, except ... if there was the smell of large campaign contributions wafting through the air. What I do not know, and would be interested in, is if Hillary was in any way part of the loop or was otherwise tied in with Denise Rich and her crowd. That's why the Rich pardon, based on what I now know, is not part of the case against Hillary.

Let's not encourage posts like this. It's incredibly irresponsible to say that a friend, who heard it from a person the friend himself believed to be unreliable, who heard it from god knows who, said that the equivalent of a bribe was offered. I've posted numerous anti-Clinton messages on TPM and related websites, but I really think Johnson is going way outside of the realm of the responsible in suggesting that Clinton had an offer on the table.

Imo Geffen's complaint isn't that clinton didn't pardon peltier, but that he pardoned rich without also pardoning peltier.

He is saying if you are willing to pardon a known wealthy jackass scofflaw why not pardon someone who may be deserving of it?

So asking if obama would pardon peltier is the wrong question, I doubt he would have pardoned either rich or peliter but definitely not rich.

You're missing the point. Comments about all to the left of center are as devoid of meaning as comments about all to the right of center are. I don't need to be told Cheney/Bush and company are "the enemy". Believe I'm no fan of the moron and the sicko.

Tom

And even if there were a case what would the damages be? Geffen's image on TPMCafe suffered for it?

I presume you think the same about Ollie North and the rest of Reagan's henchmen as well?

Jan Knaus

Just out of curiosity, Mr. Johnson, when was the last time your FBI buddy (or for that matter any of your FBI buddies) felt that a convicted felon was in fact innocent of the charges?

Geffen and Hollywood are absolutely pathetic wanting the murderer of 2 FBI agents pardoned.

I'm sorry, but where is the evidence that AIM members murdered those agents?

that certainly puts things in context. Libby being Rich's lawyer trumps any silly party loyalties.

You can indeed accuse a public figure of committing a felony, unless that accusation is both false and malicious. Times v. Sullivan and its successor cases - look them up.

Well, since you like the Wikipedia, let's see a few lines of their info on the subject:

And why was no one ever convicted for it?  Because they were pardoned, not because they were innocent.  There's plenty more if you just go to Wilipedia and type in "Iran-Contra SCANDAL"  Sorry about the spelling error.  I was in a rush!   

 Jan Knaus

Re: Peltier and AIM and the FBI
Considering that the FBI of that era coordinated and perpetrated the assassination of Fred Hampton (the position of the independent federal investigation of the incident, not just my opinion) and Bunchy Carter, anyone who simply accepts an "ex-FBI buddy's" version of the Pine Ridge tragedy is naive at best.
Whether one believes them to have been right or wrong, it is clear to any objective analyst that the FBI under Nixon, Hoover and then Tolson and Gray considered us as a nation to be at war with the African-American and Native American domestic revolutionaries; and clearly, under their direction, all was considered fair in that war.
There were horrific acts committed by both sides during that time, and though I've read and investigated as thoroughly as any public person can, I don't know what happened at Pine Ridge and I don't guess anyone ever will. But to simply assume that the FBI is telling the truth because they are the FBI is myopic.

When reporters descended upon Obama to ask him about the flap, he looked positively stunned. Clearly, he was being schooled in the art of slash and burn politics, Clinton-style.

However, his response was measured, classy, and entirely appropriate: this is between the Clintons and David Geffen.

Game, set, match for Sen. Obama.

Clinton simply can not overcome who she is: a fiery, angry woman who wants to crush anyone in her way.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to collect huge sums of support (and money) as the fresh-faced outsider that the Democratic Party desperately needs.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are “business as usual” to millions of American voters. They are the textbook definition of the ultimate Washington insiders.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Barack Obama will become his party’s nominee for president. This latest flap demonstrates that he can stay above the fray and keep his head about him while Hillary rants and raves and turns three shades of raging red.

I'm talking about the use of the universal "all" as opposed to the word "some".

Tom

I agree with the main post that the Rich pardon is the most egregious act Clinton ever took. It reeks to highest heaven

So, is the bottomline that Mrs. Rich, earned the pardon ala Lewinski style? Did Geffen offer the wrong type of job?

OK. I don't know what you mean by a red herring. I do know why you don't want to bother with reading the excerpt about Iran-Contra since it repudiates your stance about it being a noble indeavor. (I guess you don't know any people from Nicaragua -- never mind; that's obvious.) Yes, it was YOU who brought up Wikipedia. Sorry that a couple of paragraphs was too much for you.

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly that the Marc Rich pardon was disgusting. How many people on YOUR side are so honest? Name a few (and please, don't include yourself).

Jan Knaus

I do know people from Nicaragua - to put it politely they are not fans of Iran-Contra and Ronald Reagan.

Tom

Are they fans of Marc Rich or Leonard Peltier?