Reply With Quote
I've always been in the camp that thought Cheney would finish out his term, but given the testimony in the Libby trial, I'm seriously starting to have my doubts. My guess is the key will be Rove and Cheney's testimony.
1) Your puns suck.
2) Do you honestly think this trial is going to have any real effect on Cheney in anyway?
I've always been in the camp that thought Cheney would finish out his term, but given the testimony in the Libby trial, I'm seriously starting to have my doubts. My guess is the key will be Rove and Cheney's testimony.
February 6, 2007
Mr. Cheney, Tear Down This Wall
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
At the Republican National Convention in 2000 that nominated him for vice president, Cheney told a rapturous crowd that Democrats “will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.”
( and then dubya and head went on immediatly to dissemble, misrepresent, hype half-truths and lie from the instant they took office to day they leave office )
So, Mr. Cheney, now that the Scooter Libby trial is raising doubts about your own integrity, you owe the nation an explanation. Here are a few questions to help frame your explanation of your activities:
Mr. Vice President, did you push Mr. Libby to dig into Joe Wilson’s background and discredit him?
Mr. Libby made such a major effort to gather materials from the C.I.A. and State Department about Mr. Wilson — both before and after you told him on June 12, 2003, that his wife worked at the C.I.A. — that it seems likely that you commanded the effort. True?
What did you mean when you wrote, in a note to Scott McClellan that has been entered into evidence, “not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others.”
First, you wrote that it was “the Pres.” who had asked Mr. Libby to do this, and then you crossed out those two words. Did President Bush indeed ask that Mr. Libby take charge of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson? And is it true, as was hinted at in the trial, that the White House tried to block the release of this do ent?
When you discussed Joe Wilson with Mr. Libby on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, what instructions did you give him?
Trial testimony indicates that on that flight, Mr. Libby looked over some questions a reporter had sent in about Mr. Wilson and then said: “Let me go talk to the boss and I’ll be back.” After consulting with you, Mr. Libby later called reporters to feed them a skewed version of Mr. Wilson’s trip.
Mr. Cheney, on that plane, did you specifically tell Mr. Libby to leak to reporters the fact that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A.?
Deborah Bond of the F.B.I. has testified that Mr. Libby acknowledged in one of his interviews that on that flight, he might have talked to you about whether to tell the news media about Valerie Wilson. So did he?
Since Mr. Libby is renowned for his caution, it seems highly unlikely that he would have leaked classified information twice to reporters right after talking to you, unless you had sanctioned the leak.
During the leak investigation, were you aware that Mr. Libby was telling the F.B.I. apparently false information?
You rode to work with him nearly every day in your limousine, and the issue never came up? Or did you ask Mr. Libby to protect you because you didn’t want it known that in fact you were the one who had told him about Ms. Wilson? Was there some other information you wanted kept secret?
Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi W.M.D. by blaming the C.I.A. and anybody else within range, like Mr. Wilson?
More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument in the run-up to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And one senses, in the indictment and the trial testimony, that by the early summer of 2003, there was panic in your office that the W.M.D. had failed to materialize.
So when Ambassador Wilson came forward, you seem to have been infuriated. You tried to blame the C.I.A., and then your office tried to discredit Mr. Wilson by arguing that he had simply enjoyed a junket arranged by his wife.
Robert Grenier, a C.I.A. official, told the court that he thought the White House was “trying to avoid responsibility for positions that they took with regard to the truth about whether or not Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” So did this all arise from an attempted cover-up?
So when are you going to come clean?
When Richard Nixon was accused of misusing campaign contributions in 1952, he gave his famous Checkers speech. When questions rose about Spiro Agnew’s conduct in 1973, he repeatedly addressed them in public. (Look, you know you’re in trouble when the press tries to hold you to the same standards of transparency and integrity as Nixon and Agnew.)
I’m not accusing you of committing a crime. But there are serious questions here, and you owe the nation not legalisms, but that “stiff dose of truth.” If you continue to stonewall, then you don’t belong in office and you should resign.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/06...ristof.html?hp
==============
Come on, head, we're all waiting for that “stiff dose of truth” from your con-man pie-hole. Give us your your best shot, we can take it. (but we KNOW we'll NEVER get the truth from this Exec)
Chaulk another one up for Conspiracy theories....
In tapes, Libby tells of plan to leak secrets
Jurors hear new details of efforts to discredit Wilson
Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Washingtonsan francisco gate-- Former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury in 2004 that Vice President Cheney was upset by an ambassador's public questioning of the Iraq war and that President Bush, Cheney and Libby were involved in a plan -- kept secret from other senior White House officials -- to leak previously classified intelligence to counter the criticism.
......................
Libby can be heard describing how Cheney was upset when Wilson went public with allegations that the White House had twisted intelligence to make the case for war. In an op-ed article, Wilson said he had been sent to investigate a key claim -- that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African nation of Niger -- and found it untrue, months before President Bush included the allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech.
"It was a serious accusation," Libby said. "It was a very serious attack." It also quickly became a "topic that was discussed on a daily basis" in the White House.
Libby said that Cheney "thought we should get some of these facts out to the press. He then undertook to get permission from the president to talk about this" to reporters.
Nothing to see here folks, move along...
Meanwhile, in a galaxy far, far away...
"From Me?"
Can you actually name one thing that Bush has done that is an impeachable offense?
"impeachable offense?"
easy:
dereliction of NatSec/NatDefense duty prior to 9/11
all the lies justifying Iraq war.
the destruction of Clinton's excellent FEMA by forcing it into the DHS -hole
Last edited by boutons_; 02-08-2007 at 12:07 PM.
Other than that!
Silly question, young padawan..
Pincus Reveals Fleischer As CIA Leak Source
Post's Woodward and Columnist Novak Called as Defense Witness
By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 12, 2007; 4:38 PM
Washington Post...Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified in court this morning that then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was the first person to tell him that a prominent critic of the Iraq war was married to undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Pincus testified as the first defense witness at Libby's perjury trial. He was followed today by five other Washington journalists, including Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward and syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak. All of them testified either that they learned about Plame from other administration officials or that they had conversations with Libby, who did not mention her to them -- or both.
Pincus for the first time publicly disclosed the confidential source inside the White House who told him in 2003 that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV worked at the CIA on matters relating to weapons of mass destruction.
Fleischer testified last month as a prosecution witness that he mentioned Plame only to two reporters -- John erson, then of Time Magazine, and David Gregory of NBC News -- during a trip that President Bush took to Africa.
Pincus, who covers national security and intelligence issues for The Post, told jurors that he was at his newsroom desk on Saturday, July 12, 2003, when he had a telephone conversation with a source. They were discussing a story he was preparing about a trip Wilson took to Niger on behalf of the CIA to explore reports that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from the African nation for its nuclear weapons program.
"The person I was calling suddenly swerved off and said . . . 'Don't you know, in effect, his wife works at the CIA, is an analyst on weapons of mass destruction?' " Pincus testified. He told the court that the source said, "That's why people aren't paying attention" to Wilson's findings that the Iraq reports were unfounded, because he had been sent on the mission by his wife.
Asked by defense attorney William Jeffress Jr. whether his source had been Libby, Pincus replied that he had not. Asked who the source was, Pincus replied: "Ari Fleischer."
Ari had immunity if he told the truth, lies void the deal, so did Pincus
No shooter, no Scooter...
Yahoo NewsWASHINGTON -Vice President Cheney will not testify at the perjury and obstruction trial of his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter Libby, nor will Libby take the stand in his own defense, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said he advised Cheney's lawyer over lunch that his testimony would not be needed. Wells also said he planned to rest his case without calling Libby.
In December, Wells announced that he would call Cheney as a defense witness. Historians said that it would have been the first time that a sitting vice president would have sat as a witness in a criminal case.
Maybe they could testify together? You know, be there for each other.
From the Washington Post
Trial in Error
If You're Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?
By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; B01
Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald charged Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff with perjury on the theory that Libby had a nefarious reason for lying to a grand jury about what he told reporters regarding CIA officer Plame: He was trying to cover up a White House conspiracy to retaliate against Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had infuriated Vice President Cheney by accusing the Bush administration of lying about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Fitzgerald apparently concluded that a purported cover-up was sufficient motive for Libby to trim his recollections in a criminal way. So when Libby's testimony differed from that of others, it was Libby who got indicted.
There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.
If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet, with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because . . . well, just because. To wit:
· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's iden y requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.
From FBI interviews conducted after Oct. 1, 2003, Fitzgerald also knew that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage had identified Plame as a CIA officer to columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published Plame's name on July 14, 2003.
· In January 2001, Libby was the lawyer for millionaire financier Marc Rich, whom President Bill Clinton pardoned shortly before leaving office. Fitzgerald, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York, and U.S. Attorney James Comey spearheaded the criminal investigation of that pardon.
· Fitzgerald jailed former New York Times reporter Judith Miller for almost 90 days for not providing evidence in a matter that involved no crime. Yet the two were engaged in another dispute: Fitzgerald wanted Miller's phone records, contending that by contacting an Islamic charity, she had alerted it to a government search the day before it happened.
· Fitzgerald granted immunity to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer without ever asking what he would testify to; he permitted NBC News bureau chief Tim Russert to be interviewed in a law firm office with his lawyer present, while Novak was forced to testify before the grand jury without counsel present.
· Armitage, like Bush adviser Karl Rove, forgot one conversation with a reporter. Fitzgerald threatened Rove with prosecution; Armitage bragged that he didn't even need a lawyer.
· In violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald made one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not "the first official" to reveal Plame's iden y.
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derričre.
The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the iden y of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.
There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES JOSEPH C. WILSON IV with misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts.
· On July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on "Meet the Press" hours after the New York Times published his op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat. The piece suggested that Wilson had been sent to Niger at the vice president's request to look into foreign intelligence reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium. Wilson told Andrea Mitc , "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip there." But Cheney said he had no knowledge of Wilson's trip and was never briefed on his oral report to the CIA.
· Wilson has claimed repeatedly -- including on MSNBC's "Countdown" on July 22, 2005 and at the National Press Club on Oct. 31, 2005 -- that he was sent to Niger because of his "specific skill set" and not because of his wife. But Senate intelligence committee do ents indicate that Plame suggested his name for the trip, as did a State Department report and a CIA official who briefed the vice president's office.
· Although Wilson has repeatedly claimed that neither his trip nor his oral report was classified, the CIA sent do ents about the trip marked "classified" to the vice president's office and to date has not released the essence of the oral report. A source later identified as Wilson claimed in a Washington Post article on June 12, 2003, that do ents related to an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal were forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." When Senate intelligence committee staff questioned that, as Wilson had never seen the do ents, he responded that he may have "misspoken."
· Wilson has continually played coy about his wife's status. On July 16, 2003, David Corn wrote in the Nation: "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?" Corn acknowledged talking to Wilson but said that Wilson refused to talk about his wife. Yet Corn also published Wilson's rather unsubtle suggestion: "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career."
Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE MEDIA with hypocrisy in asserting that criminal law was applicable to this "leak" and with misreporting facts to wage a political attack on an increasingly unpopular White House. To wit:
· Notwithstanding the fact that major newspapers have highfalutin', well-paid in-house and outside counsel who can find the disclosure law and even interpret it, the following publications called for a criminal investigation:
· The Atlanta Journal-Cons ution called the appointment of a special independent counsel "absolutely necessary" because the allegations "come perilously close to treason" -- even though treason is a cons utional crime requiring two witnesses and the levying of war against the United States.
· The Boston Globe wrote: "This is a case that clearly calls for the appointment of an independent counsel."
· The New York Times naively approved the investigation if it "focused on the White House, not on journalists." It later applauded Fitzgerald's appointment, declaring that he must be allowed "to use the full powers of a special counsel."
· The Washington Post refrained from expressing shock at a "leak." But The Post had contributed to the fray by reporting on Sept. 28, 2003, that "two White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the iden y and occupation of Wilson's wife . . . to undercut Wilson's credibility." This article was the likely impetus for the other papers' editorials.
As recently as a week ago, the media were displaying their prejudice in this case. On "Meet the Press," journalists lamented that the Libby trial was revealing how government officials can use their relationships with reporters to plant stories that hurt their political enemies. Where was the voice at the table asking, "Didn't Wilson also use the media with his assertions in the New York Times and The Post?"
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES ARI FLEISCHER because his testimony about conversations differs from reporters' testimony, just as Libby's does. To wit:
· The former White House press secretary testified before the grand jury and at the trial that he had revealed Plame's iden y to two reporters -- John erson, then of Time magazine, and NBC News's David Gregory. erson denied it. Gregory won't comment.
· On cross-examination, Fleischer testified that it was "absolutely correct" that he did not tell The Post's Walter Pincus on July 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Pincus emphatically contradicted this, swearing that in the middle of a discussion, Fleischer "swerved off," asking, "Why do you keep writing about Joe Wilson and Joe Wilson's trip? Don't you know his wife worked for the CIA as an analyst for weapons of mass destruction and arranged for it?"
So indict Fleischer. He contradicted Pincus as materially as Libby contradicted Russert or Time's Matthew Cooper, the two witnesses who were the basis for the Libby indictment. Whoops! Can't do that. Fitzgerald gave Fleischer "pig in a poke" immunity. That's an old prosecutor's phrase meaning that Fitzgerald granted Fleischer immunity from prosecution without knowing what Fleischer would say. No problem -- indict Pincus. His testimony differed from Fleischer's and he didn't ask for immunity.
* * *
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES RICHARD L. ARMITAGE with intentionally keeping silent about being the first person to reveal Plame's iden y to reporters and with falsely telling the public that he did so at Fitzgerald's request because he did not want to be publicly embarrassed. To wit:
· Novak testified that Armitage told him on July 8, 2003, that it was Wilson's wife, "Valerie," who sent him on the Niger trip. Not until September 2006 did Armitage release Novak to reveal publicly that he had been the columnist's source.
· The Post's Bob Woodward testified that Armitage told him on June 13, 2003, rather colorfully: Wilson's "wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency." When the FBI interviewed Armitage on Oct. 2, 2003, he apparently forgot about his taped interview with perhaps the most famous journalist of this generation. In November 2005 Armitage released Woodward from their confidentiality agreement -- but only to tell Fitzgerald, not the rest of us, how he had learned of Plame's iden y.
· Armitage attributed his more than three years of silence to Fitzgerald's request that he not discuss the matter with anyone. But Fitzgerald was not appointed until Dec. 30, 2003, three months after Armitage now says he realized that he was Novak's source.
· Despite Armitage's claim as to why he kept silent, he yakked to his subordinate Marc Grossman about what he had said in his FBI interview -- conveniently, the night before Grossman's own FBI interview.
THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT with abdicating its legal and professional responsibility by passing the investigation off to a special counsel out of personal pique and reasons of ambition.
· Both then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General James Comey not only had access to the law books but also the clout and clearances to demand that the CIA tell them whether Plame was covert.
· In the fall of 2003, Ashcroft, having learned that he would probably be replaced after the 2004 elections, had grown weary of taking flak for the president and threw the Libby investigation hot potato to Comey.
· In the fall of 2003, Comey, who hoped to replace Ashcroft as attorney general, in turn passed the hot potato to Fitzgerald, a former colleague and one of his best friends.
I rest my cases.
[email protected]
Victoria Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, is a Washington lawyer.
Much to do about nothing until it goes to civil court and Val and her husband
pick up a lot of loot, maybe in two/3 years.
Dan, there never was a crime committed. What part of
that do you not understand. The person who first revealed
Plame worked for CIA was not charged and is known and
it wasn't the VP. No crime....no crime.....no crime....
got it?
10 years ago, I too would have thought this was much ado about nothing...but the self-righteous Republicans taught us all that lying to a Grand Jury is the worst crime imaginable and MUST be persecuted...er, prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.
Well, this completely discredits this article.On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's iden y requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.
Ray, if Plame was no longer a 'active covert agent' as the wingnut media claims, then why did the CIA send her and elements of Brewster Associates, the CIA front company she worked for before it was exposed by this leak, to Africa along with her husband in 2001?
In the statute, "covert" has a very specific meaning in which Fitzgerald has already stipulated Plame did not fit.
It's hard to convict people of conspiracy unless you get one of the main conspirators to talk. So Fitz is pressing Libby..........for now.
You're delusional if you think a) Libby will be convicted and b) this is going any further than it already has.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
