PDA

View Full Version : Cheney drawn into Plame investigation


banyon
05-14-2006, 08:30 AM
A Fresh Focus on Cheney
Handwritten notes by the Vice President surface in the Fitzgerald probe.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/060509_060515/060513_LibbyCheney_vl.widec.jpg

Web Exclusive
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 9:56 a.m. ET May 14, 2006
May 13, 2006 - The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson's CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether Wilson had been sent by his wife on a "junket" to Africa.

Cheney's notes, written on the margins of a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed column by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, were included as part of a filing Friday night by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the perjury and obstruction case against ex-Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence. In the column, which created a firestorm after its publication, Wilson wrote that he had been dispatched by the CIA without pay to Niger in February 2002 to investigate an intelligence report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country for a nuclear bomb. Wilson said he was told Cheney had asked about the intelligence, but the White House subsequently ignored his findings debunking the Niger claims.


In the margins of the op-ed, Cheney jotted out a series of questions that seemed to challenge many of Wilson's assertions as well as the legitimacy of his CIA-sponsored trip to Africa: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. [sic] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for Cheney's own notes to be made public. The notes—apparently obtained as a result of a grand jury subpoena—would appear to make Cheney an even more central witness than had been previously thought in the criminal probe. Fitzgerald's prosecution has created continued problems for the White House. Karl Rove, the President Bush's chief political adviser, recently made his fifth grand jury appearance in the case and remains under scrutiny while Fitzgerald weighs whether to file criminal charges against him. For now, Libby is the only figure charged in the case.

rest of article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/)

banyon
05-14-2006, 08:32 AM
photo

Ugly Duck
05-14-2006, 08:59 AM
Maybe Cheney forgot just like Rove forgot. They never met joe Wilson, they don't even know who he is. Maybe Wilson went on a junket to Niger without pay. Thats just the kind of junket that government officials hope and pray for, eh? Wutta perk!

patteeu
05-14-2006, 09:38 AM
Is this the 6th or 7th time Cheney has been drawn into the Plame investigation? I'm losing count. :p

banyon
05-14-2006, 10:21 AM
Is this the 6th or 7th time Cheney has been drawn into the Plame investigation? I'm losing count. :p

Isn't this time #1 for having Fitzgerald draw him in?

Adept Havelock
05-14-2006, 10:39 AM
Isn't this time #1 for having Fitzgerald draw him in?

Indeed.

BucEyedPea
05-14-2006, 11:13 AM
Personally, my suspicions have been more on Cheney than Rove.
He's running the foreign policy show.

jAZ
05-14-2006, 11:39 AM
Personally, my suspicions have been more on Cheney than Rove.
He's running the foreign policy show.
This is unconfirmed by any other source, so take it for what it's worth, but...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

patteeu
05-14-2006, 12:18 PM
Isn't this time #1 for having Fitzgerald draw him in?

This isn't a new development for Fitzgerald, it's only new to the public in the sense that it's the first public acknowledgement of this particular aspect of his investigation. What do you think it means wrt Cheney? My take is that it is meaningless. It may or may not help the prosecutor's case against Libby, but it doesn't appear damaging at all for Cheney.

banyon
05-14-2006, 12:26 PM
This isn't a new development for Fitzgerald, it's only new to the public in the sense that it's the first public acknowledgement of this particular aspect of his investigation. What do you think it means wrt Cheney? My take is that it is meaningless. It may or may not help the prosecutor's case against Libby, but it doesn't appear damaging at all for Cheney.

It's some evidence of Cheney being in on the decision to out her.

Which IF, it was construed as an illegal act (which I know that you don't think anything the Bush regime does is illegal), then it might be grounds for a conspiracy charge.

jAZ
05-14-2006, 03:47 PM
I think Fitz is going after conspriacy charges and is looking at Cheney as the RL.

Adept Havelock
05-14-2006, 04:55 PM
I think Fitz is going after conspriacy charges and is looking at Cheney as the RL.

Cheney is Ringleader? Maybe that's why he hasn't posted here in a while. Too busy napping.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 05:50 PM
Isn't this time #1 for having Fitzgerald draw him in?

I have to amend my previous answer. It's not the first time Cheney has been drawn in by Fitzgerald. It happened when he was called to testify and it happened when he was asked to submit documents too.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 05:55 PM
It's some evidence of Cheney being in on the decision to out her.

Which IF, it was construed as an illegal act (which I know that you don't think anything the Bush regime does is illegal), then it might be grounds for a conspiracy charge.

Only in so far as it establishes the baseline fact that he knew Wilson had a wife who might have been in a position to send him on a "junket." Nothing in the pic you provided gives any indication that he intended to out her nor does it even indicate that he knew anything about her role at CIA.

Based on what we know, we're still a long way from establishing that an outing crime occurred and even farther away from implicating Cheney. Even if her identity was classified, can't Cheney make the determination to declassify it just like the President did with portions of the NIE?

patteeu
05-14-2006, 05:55 PM
Cheney is Ringleader? Maybe that's why he hasn't posted here in a while. Too busy napping.

I really liked Ringleader.

banyon
05-14-2006, 05:59 PM
Only in so far as it establishes the baseline fact that he knew Wilson had a wife who might have been in a position to send him on a "junket." Nothing in the pic you provided gives any indication that he intended to out her nor does it even indicate that he knew anything about her role at CIA.

Based on what we know, we're still a long way from establishing that an outing crime occurred and even farther away from implicating Cheney. Even if her identity was classified, can't Cheney make the determination to declassify it just like the President did with portions of the NIE?

That's why I said "some" evidence and not "slam dunk". :)

But I think a clever prosecutor could make it a lot more probative than you portray it.

I think the legality of the Executive order that supposedly gave Cheney this authority might be reviewed as well. Seems like the President would be unable to delegate a lot of his duties to the VP, as that would violate the non-delegable duty doctrine.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 06:37 PM
That's why I said "some" evidence and not "slam dunk". :)

But I think a clever prosecutor could make it a lot more probative than you portray it.

I think the legality of the Executive order that supposedly gave Cheney this authority might be reviewed as well. Seems like the President would be unable to delegate a lot of his duties to the VP, as that would violate the non-delegable duty doctrine.

:thumb:

Taco John
05-14-2006, 08:31 PM
Is this the 6th or 7th time Cheney has been drawn into the Plame investigation? I'm losing count. :p



By my count it's the first..

Taco John
05-14-2006, 08:37 PM
My take is that it is meaningless.



Big shock... :rolleyes:


My take is that if it was meaningless, it wouldn't be news.

More likely, it means that Fitzgerald is working on a case against Cheney.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 08:52 PM
More likely, it means that Fitzgerald is working on a case against Cheney.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you though.

Taco John
05-14-2006, 08:59 PM
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you though.


I wouldn't either. It's clear that Fitzgerald is going to take his time.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 02:49 AM
Here's the AP story:
Cheney Notes Add Twist to CIA Leak Probe

News: Crime / Police Notes, Politics



Cheney Notes Add Twist to CIA Leak Probe
print | email this story


By PETE YOST | Associated Press
May 15, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said more than six months ago that he was not alleging any criminal acts by Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the leak of agency operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Today, the prosecutor is leaving the door open to the possibility that the vice president's now-indicted former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was acting at his boss' behest when Libby allegedly leaked information about Plame to reporters.

A new court filing presents handwritten notes of Cheney. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is using them to assert that the vice president and Libby, working together, were focusing much attention on Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a Bush administration critic.

Cheney's notes ask whether Plame had sent Wilson on a "junket" to Africa. Subsequently, Plame's supposed role in her husband's trip to Africa allegedly was leaked to the media by both Libby and by presidential adviser Karl Rove.


Cheney's notes on the margins of Wilson's opinion column in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, reflect "the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president," Fitzgerald said in the court filing late Friday.

Wilson's column "is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,'" the court papers say.

Cheney's notes "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson op-ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant - his chief of staff - on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions," according to the file.

In the column, Wilson recounted how he had been sent by the CIA in 2002 to the Niger to assess intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from the African country. His conclusion: It was highly doubtful that such a deal existed.

A year later, the intelligence about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal was still being given credence by the administration as it made the case for invading Iraq.

Scribbled in the days leading up to the leaks of Plame's identity, Cheney's notes refer to the CIA and to Wilson's trip, asking, "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to assess a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Accused of lying about how he learned of Plame's identity and what he told reporters about her, Libby says Plame's CIA identity was a trivial matter. Libby says he was focused instead on Wilson's accusations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

In an effort to undercut Libby's defense, Fitzgerald wants to introduce the evidence that refers to Cheney and to Wilson's wife.

At a news conference last October, on the day he obtained an indictment against Libby, Fitzgerald asked a series of rhetorical questions including, "Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?"

Fitzgerald said he does not know the answer because Libby had concealed the truth from investigators. Drawing a baseball analogy putting the prosecutor in the role of baseball umpire, Fitzgerald said, "The umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now and if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you."

The Oct. 28 indictment charges Libby with five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

The language in the indictment provided the first indication that the Libby case might also be a case focusing closely on Cheney.

According to the indictment, Libby acknowledged to investigators that Cheney had told him in June 2003 about Wilson's wife working at the CIA. But Libby, according to the indictment, told the investigators that by the next month, he had forgotten that the vice president had told him about her.

The newly filed court papers disclose substantial new detail about Cheney that was not in the indictment, which did not reveal the fact that Cheney had made handwritten notes about Wilson's wife in the margin of Wilson's column in the Times.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/43670.html

KCWolfman
09-11-2006, 12:34 AM
Wow, where are all the posts admitting you guys believed the lies and screw ups of a wasted investigation on Rove and Cheney?

Or do you still have wacked out conspiracy theories instead of believing the facts presented by Richard Armitage? One would think you would be angry over the wasted tax payer dollars regarding the investigation since Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage all along.

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2006, 12:37 AM
Rove and Cheney are da debbil!

penchief
09-11-2006, 05:22 AM
Cheney's response to Tim Russert on Meet the Press yesterday made it pretty clear, I think, that the door is still open to further discovery. He's probably going to be called to testify at Libby's trial, at which time he will be under oath. I can understand his reluctance to defend his role in the case on national television. Especially considering the number of clips that Russert presented to him as evidence of prior misleading or incorrect statements about Iraq.

Cochise
09-11-2006, 07:12 AM
That's the sad part about this whole story. Fitzgerald knew who it was the whole time but let all this time and energy, and taxpayer money, be wasted.

KCWolfman
09-11-2006, 10:34 AM
That's the sad part about this whole story. Fitzgerald knew who it was the whole time but let all this time and energy, and taxpayer money, be wasted.
Funny how the same people who bitched about Ken Starr have given Fitzgerald a free pass for doing worse.

SBK
09-11-2006, 01:14 PM
Fitzgerald = publicity whore.

banyon
09-11-2006, 02:09 PM
Funny how the same people who bitched about Ken Starr have given Fitzgerald a free pass for doing worse.

?


A comparison worth considering. To date Fitzgerald has spent:

In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office.

In his "investigation," Ken Starr spent:

The figures show that Starr's office, through the end of November 1998, had spent $40,835,000.

Fitzgerald $$ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301028_2.html)

Starr $$$ (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/)

mlyonsd
09-11-2006, 06:22 PM
Funny how the same people who bitched about Ken Starr have given Fitzgerald a free pass for doing worse.

You evidently missed the memo where the rights of that skanky slimy whorecrap bitch with a Witchiepoo nose Paula Jone's right's are not equal and less important than those of the Superwoman defender of the American way and lover of all animals, the homeless, and ugly people everywhere, Valerie Plame.

KCWolfman
09-12-2006, 01:42 AM
?




Fitzgerald $$ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301028_2.html)

Starr $$$ (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/)
Since Fitzgerald knew about the leak from the onset, it was a wasted attempted no matter what dollar amount was signed.

Nice try to give some sort of fiscal comparison, but hardly an apt analogy as Fitzgerald wasted good money to find out what he already knew.

penchief
09-12-2006, 05:36 AM
Since Fitzgerald knew about the leak from the onset, it was a wasted attempted no matter what dollar amount was signed.

Nice try to give some sort of fiscal comparison, but hardly an apt analogy as Fitzgerald wasted good money to find out what he already knew.

It's a little premature to call it over, I think. Libby didn't commit perjury just to protect Richard Armitage. I wouldn't be surprised if more discoveries are made. It's a national security issue that has serious implications. It should be investigated as much as needed to discover the entire truth. To not seek full accountability in such a serious matter would be ceding the power that, we the people, have in which to hold our leaders accountable. "Oversight" and "checks & balances" are more than words. They are tools by which this country built a tradition that, up until now, had placed the United States as the world's true hope for the future.

Transparent government is one of America's virtues. Our leaders work for us. Richard Armitage may have been Novak's original source but he wasn't the only one within the administration that was acting out. When we are given good reason, it's our duty to figure out for sure whether or not our leaders are abusing their power. If it turns out that they didn't, great. Less damage was done. I'd be okay with that. But to try to shrug it off as irrelevant would not be good for our country in the long term. In my opinion, it would only help to perpetuate even greater abuses in the future.

JMO.

patteeu
09-12-2006, 06:03 AM
It's a little premature to call it over, I think. Libby didn't commit perjury just to protect Richard Armitage. I wouldn't be surprised if more discoveries are made. It's a national security issue that has serious implications. It should be investigated as much as needed to discover the entire truth. To not seek full accountability in such a serious matter would be ceding the power that, we the people, have in which to hold our leaders accountable. "Oversight" and "checks & balances" are more than words. They are tools by which this country built a tradition that, up until now, had placed the United States as the world's true hope for the future.

Transparent government is one of America's virtues. Our leaders work for us. Richard Armitage may have been Novak's original source but he wasn't the only one within the administration that was acting out. When we are given good reason, it's our duty to figure out for sure whether or not our leaders are abusing their power. If it turns out that they didn't, great. Less damage was done. I'd be okay with that. But to try to shrug it off as irrelevant would not be good for our country in the long term. In my opinion, it would only help to perpetuate even greater abuses in the future.

JMO.

When do you know you're done so you can start shrugging?

KCWolfman
09-15-2006, 01:16 AM
It's a little premature to call it over, I think. Libby didn't commit perjury just to protect Richard Armitage. I wouldn't be surprised if more discoveries are made. It's a national security issue that has serious implications. It should be investigated as much as needed to discover the entire truth. To not seek full accountability in such a serious matter would be ceding the power that, we the people, have in which to hold our leaders accountable. "Oversight" and "checks & balances" are more than words. They are tools by which this country built a tradition that, up until now, had placed the United States as the world's true hope for the future.

Transparent government is one of America's virtues. Our leaders work for us. Richard Armitage may have been Novak's original source but he wasn't the only one within the administration that was acting out. When we are given good reason, it's our duty to figure out for sure whether or not our leaders are abusing their power. If it turns out that they didn't, great. Less damage was done. I'd be okay with that. But to try to shrug it off as irrelevant would not be good for our country in the long term. In my opinion, it would only help to perpetuate even greater abuses in the future.

JMO.


Shrug it off? Fitzgerald is more guilty of hiding info than anyone else you mention. He fits every single word in every single sentence of every paragraph of your gripe above.