
In my sixth post after Libby's indictment–just two days after the indictment–I wrote a post called Indicting Dick. After noting that one of the indictment descriptions–the strategy session aboard Air Force Two on July 12, 2003–was really about Cheney even though it didn't name him, I wrote,
Tricky Fitzgerald!! He's been hiding Dick right in the middle of his Libby indictment.
I went on to list a whole bunch of details included in the indictment that might be references to Cheney. With all the evidence that has come out at the trial, I see I was right about several of these (but not that Cheney was a source for Martin of Plame's identity).
But we have learned far, far more about Cheney's personal involvement in the smear against Joe and Valerie Wilson. So it's time to gather it all into one chronology. If Fitzgerald wants to use this chronology to indict Cheney, he can be my guest.
By my reading, Cheney took his own notes on at least four documents pertaining to Wilson. It appears likely that, after learning that Plame worked at CIA from Libby or Martin, he went out and found out precisely where she worked, then he reported it back to Libby. Cheney directed Libby on at least three occasions (with Judy, with David Martin and Mitchell, and with Cooper et al) to personally intervene with journalists. And Cheney remained actively involved in crafting the response to Wilson all week during leak week. In addition, it seems clear that Cheney was pushing the Wilson attacks after the Novak article.
All this at a time when–according to Libby–they were obsessed with making sure they got Iraq right. It'd be funny how that worked out … if only it weren't so tragic.
Anyway, here's the chronology. I'm focusing on things directly touching Dick here–either things we know he was involved in, or things that clearly indicate a wide push to "get the whole story out." I will leave out some events tied more closely to others in the Admin, though we may well find out Dick has ties to that, too.
May 14: In response to the May 6 Kristof article, OVP responded not by trying to figure out whether it had seen the Wilson report or actually sent him. Instead, they tried to find out if they had been told of Wilson's report in one of two known instances where his report was known to be used to support the Niger intelligence. Libby's then-Deputy, Eric Edelman, asked CIA briefer Craig Schmall for any evidence that Cheney was behind a March 2003 report laying out evidence to support the Niger claims (the report had used Wilson's report). Schmall explains the report hadn't come in response to a Cheney tasker, but a Rummy one. The report generated in response to the tasker references the report on Wilson's trip in support of the Niger claims. The fact that they asked about this report in particular, and not Wilson more generally, seems to suggest they already knew his report had been used to justify the war.
May 29: Libby asks Grossman for information on the Ambassador who made the trip to Niger.
June 3: Libby makes a note to talk with Cheney about Pincus' upcoming article.
June 9: The President expresses an interest in the Kristof column on the SOTU. That interest is shared with Libby by somebody, though he says he "has no recollection" that it was Cheney who discussed the interest Bush had in the Kristof article.
Libby asks Craig Schmall whether OVP had requested information on uranium procurement. Schmall repeats what he told Edelman a month earlier–that Rummy had made such a request, but OVP hadn't. Libby copies his notation of this onto a separate sheet, indicating (according to his grand jury testimony) that it is something he thinks he needs to save.
John Hannah (who had effectively replaced Edelman by this time) receives a report from CIA (courtesy of Schmall) outlining the Niger claims–their notice to Congress that the Niger claim was no longer operative. He underlines the description of doubts relating to the British version of the story. He also writes, "Did CIA have it in their document" in the section relating WINPAC's report to IAEA which did, indeed, rely on Wilson's report. Hannah writes a memo for Cheney detailing the intelligence behind the Niger claim.
Someone else also wrote on a second copy of the notification to Congress document. This person marked several sections in the margins. In particular, this person marked with an asterisk the passage that reads:
While also asserting there had been transfers of uranium to rogue states, one subsource–a source we are confident would have known of uranium sales–also said that he believed Iraq was interested in yellowcake purchases when it sent a delegation to Niamey in mid-1999.
The passage is a misstatement of the report on Wilson's report.
June 11: Libby pulls Robert Grenier out of a meeting with Tenet to get information on Wilson. Grenier tells Libby that Plame works at the CIA. Grenier then has Bill Harlow call Cathie Martin. Shortly thereafter, Cathie Martin informs Libby and Cheney what she has learned from Harlow–that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.
June 11 or 12: Grossman informs Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.
June 12: A CIA report on the Niger intell is delivered to Hannah and Libby ASAP.
Cheney also receives a document from the CIA on the Niger intelligence. On the first page, he writes, "prepared by the CIA." In the same paragraph identical to one marked by someone earlier in the week, Cheney underlines…
he believed Iraq was interested in yellowcake purchases when it sent a delegation to Niamey in mid-1999.
And writes, "Wilson?" in the margin.
At some point, Cheney receives two copies of the trip report. In addition to underlining key sections of one, he writes "Wilson" at the top of the page. On the second one, he draws a line from the identifier, "A contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record, (Sensitive contact)" and writes "Joe Wilson" next to the line.
Libby apparently receives a totally different copy of the summary on the Niger claims. Next to the paragraph describing the trip report, Libby wrote "Wilson" with an arrow pointing to that paragraph. In addition, someone marked the name "Joe Wilson" next to the paragraph.
Note, all of this scrambling and scribbling seems to indicate that OVP was doing more than just responding to some Pincus requests. The VP himself was obsessing over all the documents pertaining to Wilson.
June 12 to June 18 (date unsure): Cheney has learned more details about the trip. He informs Libby over the phone that Plame works in the functional office of counter-proliferation. According to Libby's notation, the same person who informed Cheney that Plame was CPD also informed him that the trip was done at the behest of OVP. Cheney directs Libby to hold something until the agency admitted they State and Defense showed a lot of interest in the Niger intelligence, in addition to OVP.
June 14: At his morning intelligence briefing, Libby asks Craig Schmall,
why was the Amb told this was a VP question?
Joe Wilson
Valerie Wilson
On the same day, Libby complains to Schmall that someone in a briefing Libby and Cheney attended at Langley spoke about him to the press. This may be a reference to the June 12 Pincus article, which said:
However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.
July 6: Cheney saves Wilson's op-ed. Probably at the same time, he writes the following on it.
Have they done this sort of thing?
Send an Amb 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?
July 7: 6:45 briefing, Cheney and Libby asked Schmall about circumstances of trip.
7:33 Libby prints out copy of Wilson op-ed and underlines it.
8:45 Senior Staff meeting, Rove says that, we needed to get a message out about Mr. Wilson that the admin and the VP did not send him and that his report did not resolve the issue.
9:22 Cathie Martin emails Ari talking points pertaining to OVP.
9:36 Ari integrates those talking points into the gaggle.
12:00 Libby has lunch with Ari and tells him that Valerie Plame (or Plam-ay, Ari suggested) worked in Counter-Proliferation at CIA and this was very hush hush.
July 8: 7:35 Cheney directs Libby to leak something to Judy Miller.
At Senior Staff meeting, Rove says the Wilson story is going right to the President's credibility.
Between 8:30 and 11:45, Libby meets with Judy Miller and tells her Plame works at WINPAC.
3:30 Cheney dictates talking points to Cathie Martin. The talking points include a reference to leaking the NIE, which concerns Martin, as she believes them to be still-classified. In an edit, Libby mentions Wilson's 1999 trip.
At Cheney's direction, Libby starts to call journalists himself, possibly to leak the NIE. He speaks to David Martin and Andrea Mitchell.
4:46 Novak calls Libby, leaves a message.
July 9: Stephen Hadley complains that someone has spoken to Andrea Mitchell and blamed the CIA for the 16 words. He assumes it is Cathie Martin or Claire Buchan–and takes them out of the loop on the Tenet statement. Martin meets with Libby and Cheney to tell them she did not say that to Mitchell.
Libby returns Novak's call.
July 10: Stephen Hadley, Libby, and Cheney meet. They have the following dialogue:
Hadley: Tenet had declassified the Wilson report, but had not yet started to declassify the NIE [the same document that--according to Libby--Cheney had already insta-declassified].
[Hadley says something that Libby doesn't write down.]
Hadley: Condi says that "The President is comfortable."
Hadley: No, it's better if we leak the NIE.
Cheney: Anything less that full and complete disclosure is a serious mistake.
Hadley: I will–I told that to George Tenet.
Libby talks to Mary Matalin on the phone. She advises Libby to go broad on the story, says that Wilson is a snake.
[Late into the night] Martin worked on strategy while Cheney, Hadley, and Libby negotiated the Tenet statement. Every time Hadley or Cheney called, Martin had to leave the room. Among the other suggestions she makes is to give an exclusive leak.
July 11: 8:36 Novak calls Libby. The content of the call has never been revealed.
Cheney declares Tenet's morning draft of his statement, "unsatisfactory." He, Hadley, and Libby work further on the statement.
July 12: Cheney dictates a response to the media for Libby to deliver. He may direct Libby to leak Plame's identity, though that is not written on the dictated message.
July 14: In their morning intelligence briefing, either Cheney or Libby asks Craig Schmall if he had read the Novak article. They tell him, "it is not your problem."
July 16: Cheney (but not Libby) attends Gerald Ford's birthday party, at which Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell's husband, is honored. Apparently, Cheney said something to Mitchell about Plame.
July 18: OVP prepares a bunch of (fairly bogus) talking points, Cheney reviews the document personally.
Cheney hosts a bunch of conservative journalists at his official residence. Cathie Martin, Libby, and (apparently) Mary Matalin attend. It is unclear whether the Novak article was discussed, though Wilson was discussed.
Sometime after July 14: Craig Schmall explains to Libby and Cheney the damage that could result if a CIA operative had her identity compromised.
(Roughly) October 3, probably in Jackson Hole: Libby and Cheney discuss the leaks. Libby claims he told Cheney that he learned of Plame's identity from Russert, Libby writes sonnet–a script for Scottie McClellan to use to publicly exonerate Libby. In response, Cheney writes,
Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy
this Presthat was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.



188 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Emptywheel! Christy! Jane! Fitz!
Marcy, absolutely stunning job today, have no idea how you are typing that rapidly short of an brain-implant-to-computer output. Brava, a tour de force!!! Thank you!!!
He did it, so why not?
Thanks ya’ll!
Where is the smart money on the issue of a Cheney indictment?
Marcy,
How do you do what you do? I think I’m fairly smart, but you make me feel so inadequate. Stellar work from all the FDL crew, just amazing.
{{{{{{{{{Emptywheel}}}}}}}}}}}
I saw this cross posted at TNH and was soooo tempted to link it here.
I guess I didn’t have to!
IMPEACH CHENEY!
Howzabout an “office pool” on the verdict? Sumpin’ like “I’ll take GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS” and if it comes in, my prize is to “bundle” contributions of enough FDL readers to add up to $500.07. I don’t think I’ve got the “prizes” structured just right yet though; any other ideas?
Similar pools might be done around how long the deliberations will take, when and whether or not (if found guilty) Libby gets a pReznitial Pardon, the date that the next related trial is held, who is indicted, when the impeachment starts… Don’t want to count too many chickens but I thought I’d throw the idea out there, there’s such creativity amongst this community… :) so whaddayathink?
thank you, thank you, thank you. I hate to think if I had to depend on cable TV for coverage of this trial. I would probably have thrown it out the window.
(((((Marcy,))))
before I even read what I’m certain is another absolutely fabulous EW post -
Bravo !! Tour de Force indeed !!! you outdid yourself today and today of all days !!! Fitz might as well have been in my living room – wish I had the vocabularly to truly convey my admiration, gratitude, and respect unfriggin’believable !
am going to YKos expressly on the chance to shake your hand !
S.O.S. in MA @ 9
You need a hobby! :)
God I hope Fitz reads this post….
Amen on the kudos, Marcy. You seriously rock.
You did a shout out today to eRiposte, what was that regarding?
I keep thinking they had to be heading off something bigger than just an op-ed. WIlson was a strong critic, but it certainly seems a bit excessive to marshall the entire calary to discredit him, doesnt it?
Did CHeney know the Niger docs were forgeries? I know eRiposte is the encylopedia on this, but it just seems weird.
thank you Marcy.
thank you FDL.
Kind of a off-the-wall question here, but looking for the Legal folks to answer a question:
If an attorney is convicted of something and then receives a Presidential pardon, is that person still an attorney?
This has as a “given” that the pardoned attorney has not been disbarred through a formal disbarment process (which I’m led to believe is only done by one’s peers, the applicable Bar Association).
The off-the-wall reason I’m asking this is:
Wrt to any effort to “flip” Scoots over on Deadeye, what if Scoots is pardoned, continues to keep his shingle, and Deadeye hires Scoots as his personal attorney?
Twould seem that Scoots would then not be allowed to tattle on Deadeye ’cause attorney/client privilege applys.
P.S. – Tinfoil hat for sale! One owner, low mileage and only slightly used. Crumpled a bit, but fits all sizes.
Wheels of Steel, running over the big Dick. Way to go Marcy!
Mike @
13
I read this post this am over at The Next Hurrah, and could hardly believe my eyes when I saw Fitz go right to the heart of Marcy’s argument in his closing statement. It blew me away and I will be in awe of Marcy’s brain forever.
Twisted Martini @ 17
Ok, where’s the brain bleach?
Thanks for the timeline, very useful for us non-Plameologists.
Marcie
Nice job to you and your compadres on this deal.
You are, of course right in wanting to indict Elmer Fudd.
If the democrats really wanted to do something cunning, they ought to impeach Cheney.
It would not cost them any political capital.
It would stop the madness of this White House as Cheney has been in charge all along.
Because it is “only the Vice President” as opposed to the President, it could be done without the Clinton/Nixon-esque grinding government to a halt.
We don’t need the lasting model of the imperial Vice Presidency.
It would be the right thing to do.
Do it, Guys.
I’m wondering if fitzgerald was allowed to enlist the aid of a civilian like marcy for research
obviously he would double check her conclusions and facts, but is there anything that would have prevented fitz from seeking council from marcy and using her book as referance?
Marcy, you have got this sh*t down pat. Excellent work. The glove fits. Is there any way to get an autographed copy of your book directly? You are a hero and a true American Patriot.
So my theory is that, following the “guilty” verdict in the Libby trial (or even if not, I suppose), Bush shuts down Fitz’s office.
Comments?
perris @ 22
I think you can bet $$ on the fact that someone on the prosecution team was reading every single word written about this case both in the MSM and the blogs. Same for the defense. BY reading this and other blogs, they get to see how various arguments play out with regular folk.
dave @ 24
you think gonzales would have the nerve to replace the fitz using that patriot act thingy they got from hitler’s “the enabling act”?
“Unique” – I think Fitz did an excellent job on the memory defense argument. We do remember something that is unique and important to us.
In 1993 or 1994 I was a Jr.(ish) Accountant with a public company. My boss had me fudge a bit on an entry to our General Ledger. Well, after an SEC inquiry and having to give a deposition in the court case, I can PROMISE you that I remember every bit of this unique experience. I can’t tell you for sure if it was 1993 or 1994 at this point but I can sure recount the details.
Too many unique conversations for Libby to have forgotten them all. Especially the one where people could be killed if someone is outed who is undercover. Fitz pointed them all out. That was the only reasonable doubt I could possibly see and he destroyed it.
dave @ 24
I don’t think he would dare. It would be worse than the disaster of Nixon firing Archibald Cox. And would make him look like he was a direct party to some sort of conspiracy.
Tug @ 21
Very well said, Tug, thanks..
taking a drive, catch all L8ter
Looks like Blair is going to “cut and run”. Bush getting a taste of his own medicine?
Dave–
I don’t think he can. Right now Fitz’s superior is deputy AG McNulty, I think. Or is Margolis still his acting superior? I know that both Ashcroft and Gonzo had to recuse themselves and Fitz acts as the Atty General in regards to the Plame leak.
Doesn’t mean that Bush couldn’t put pressure on his superiors though, but let’s think about the political sh*tstorm that would engender.
It appears my party the Dems don’t have the guts to cut off funding.
Libby is a cog in the wheel that got us a trumped-up war, over two thousand dead soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis, and a less secure Fatherland.
raven @ 12
Whaddayamean hobby?!? :) — who’s got time for a hobby when there’s a nation in process of being saved, and FDL is the most excellent seat in the house? :)
Rock on…
viget @ 32
To the Plame leak and anything related.
ok, sorry if i’ve missed this but, if cheney is a target, is the possible indictment for leaking classified material, lying and obstruction(did he and chimp testify under oath?), perjury? or just to expose him to enough light to force impeachment?
and what are the boundries of executive priv ?
Whaddayamean hobby?!? :) — who’s got time for a hobby when there’s a nation in process of being saved, and FDL is the most excellent seat in the house? :)
Rock on…
I hear ya, rockin here in Athens!
Exiled to Parallel Universe:
“The hair on my spine and arms rose as I read Marcy’s transcription of Mr. Fitzgerald’s final summation. I can’t even imagine experiencing it in person. Possible fatal arrhythmia there!
As for Marcy? I mean this in its pristine sense: Awesome performance.”
Hypatia
Mad Dogs @ 16
Libby would not be protected from testimony that related to time before he was Cheney’s lawyer. Attorney-client privelege relates to discussions that occur WHEN that relationship is in force. In addition, there is the “Fraud Exception” that would compel the attorney to reveal any illegal acts undertaken during that tenure with the knowledge of the attorney. Thus if paper shredding or known acts of perjury were occurring while the lawyer was serving, he would be compelled to report that to a Court.
Disbarment can occur even after a pardon is given. A pardon merely prevents that individual from facing imprisonment or fines for the criminal acts they undertook.
Civil measures can still occur (law suits for damages), removal from professional organizations, loss of access to a Security Clearance, even being forbidden to hold important positions.
If a person has been convicted of perjury before a Grand Jury and lying before the FBI it would seem that any Bar Association in the country would find that “cause” to rescind his license to practice law within their jurisdictions.
judeanpeoplesfront @ 37
Depends whom you ask. If you ask Dubya, Cheney or Abu…
Woodhall Hollow @ 28
Calling the Saturday Night Massacre analagous may be quaint by now. Then there was only one Bork to do the deed. Now there are dozens of Borkborgs in the Justice Department, the media is more supine than ever, and….. we’re not winding down a war, we’re ratcheting up two and setting the stage for a third.
Besides, Nixon had Cox fired on Oct 30, 1973, and resigned the 2nd week of August the following year.
I like the idea of a Cheney indictment, but on what charge(s)? And besides, is Cheney indictable?
hackworth @ 34
Not to quibble, but I believe that is over 3000 troops and, even if the Johns Hopkins study overstimates by as much as 5-fold, over 100,000 Iraqi lives.
I vaguely remember if you accept a pardon you are admitting to the crime..
I agree that impeachment of Cheney is a delicious thought. Dems only need a majority of the House to do it. Conviction in the Senate would be more tricky, but it would be fun to have Robert Byrd, as President Pro Tempore presiding over the trial.
dave @ 24
Can’t wait for that blog discussion! Another Saturday Night Massacre or not?
I’ll go first:
Abu Gonzales is just the gopher/water-carrier/sycophant to try.
The question I have is whether it is settled law that a duly-appointed Special Counsel (with plenary powers) can actually be removed if the Special Counsel declares that his investigation is not over.
Twould seem to me that one who tried to do such a thing would be opening oneself to an “obstruction of justice” charge.
Ok, who wants to go next?
Lindy @ 36
And any other criminal acts uncovered in the course of their investigation…I recall that being somewhere stated in Fitz’s allowed areas of examination.
Is there a consensus on whether eRiposte had any influence with Fitz? Think he might have read eRiposte’s posts?
“and a less secure Fatherland”
Fatherland? It’s also 50% a Motherland. Yin/Yang, equal you know? We heard enough about ‘the wife’ to last us two life times. The patriarchal crap needs to end. ;)
This post is Marcy’s way of kicking back and relaxing after a long day of liveblogging in court.
Congratulations on your day’s work, and your evening’s work.
A toast, to Conviction and further investigations!
Tammy Duckworth on KO!
Let’s forget all the impeachment political crap and just charge Cheney in Federal Court with breaking the CIA anti-outing law put in place by George Sr. This is probably naive and it’s obvious I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t that how it would go down if you or I were charged?
emptywheel, firstly, I can’t thank you enough for doing all of this….it is truly fascinating and you never cease to amaze me…today is no different.
Hanyway, Just what kind of information or connections do you think that Dick (and/or Scooter) had prior to Wilson’s op-ed about him and Valerie? You know things like how many trips he went on to investigate some uranium claims, Why he went/sent? What he found or didn’t find on either of his trips? Who sent him for each trip?
For instance Sunday you posted in your book post some interesting findings about Wilson’s 1999 trip…ie that his wife had recommended him for that trip that I wasn’t aware of and I was wondering if Dick and Scooter knew that before his July 6, 2003 op-ed?
dave @
24
Two questions:
a) CAN he shut it down?
b) Does anyone around him remember that the day the Watergate shit really hit the fan was the day Nixon fired prosecutor Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre?
Shez @ 50
Yes, you are right. Since The Boy King and his handlers invented the GWOT and coined Homeland Security I’m always reminded of Der Fatherland. I don’t know why. ;)
dreamcatcher @ 43
Cheney is indictable…after all VP Agnew was indicted for felonious acts while he was governor of Maryland. So a sitting VP can be indicted.
Essentially the Courts have held that the VP is an accessory executive post and can be replaced. Thus if his involvement in a Criminal Trial affects his capacity to serve…he can resign (some people say that if he doesn’t resign Bush can’t force him to stand down…it’s quite a Constitutional kerfuffle there)…and the President can appoint a replacement.
The Pres.can only be impeached and then, after conviction and removal from office, can be indicted.chaboard @ 55
Everybody around him does, that’s who these scumbags are. . .tricky dick leftovers.
I don’t see myself getting up 3 hours early tomorrow morning to watch Fitz finish tearing Libby’s defense a new one so,
FIIIIIIIIIITZ!
I will catch up ASAP in the AM.
That’s you Marcy, and it’s certainly true. Your fingers must have been a blur today with all the summations. Wonderful job, the occasional typos don’t bother me at all, I generally think I know what you mean.
Hoping for Justice in Canada!
Dick Cheney’s political career began in 1969, as an intern during the Nixon administration. The intern Cheney then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70.
perris @ 26
The Patriot Act thingie only permits Abu G to replace Fitz as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. It’s irrelevant to his status as Special Prosecutor. Indeed, I think that when Comey appointed Fitz as Special Prosecutor, he gave Fitz all the powers of the AG (then John “Let the Eagle Soar” Ashcroft”) so that Ashcroft could not fire him.
So I think only Dubya can fire him.
Remember the Saturday Night Massacre? It was the beginning of the end for Nixon. Those who were still unsure about Nixon’s role in the cover-up after the Senate Watergate Hearings had their doubts erased.
raven @ 61
He’s been a champion of the people ever since.
Beltway insider Isikoff was quite adamant on hardball that he believed Fitzgerald was finito after this and would seek no further charges, especially as they relate to the dark lord Cheney. Fitz’s summation today was a ferocius indictment of the unofficial unindicted co-conspirator who has allowed his Falstaff to take the hit for his prince.
cheney won’t go quietly, he’s got w waiting for armaggedon, and he’s holding out for perpetual war and martial law
i predict libby will be convicted, pardoned, and go on wingnut welfare with a fox show called “the obfuscation room”
h/t ian
I think “Fatherland” conjures up images of goose-stepping storm troopers and fascists, whereas “Motherland” does not. Sheesh, shez@50. Quit yer’ bellyachin’. Here we have a word chosen for its precise historical analogy and all some people can do is take imagined offense, seeing sexism where none exists.
hackworth @ 63
I was going to cut and paste the stuff about Dick and the draft but I figured all the FDL’rs knew that!
perris @ 25
Unfortunately, absolutely! These guys not nothin’ but balls!
Heh hackworth, I know, I know, that’s why I sent you a wink. I always speak up for the Goddess/Great Mother/Creatrix, my gender as a whole. I was made in Her image afterall.
cinnamonape, like you I believe that snippet said
the Pres, not ‘this Pres’. Do you have a link handy of the graphic from the docs that I saw of it?Yes. Sadly.
I’m jaded and not holding out hope for anything more to come down the pike and I think the pardon’s are ready to go, as and when needed, but I’ll add this observation.
Charges for a conspiracy to commit a crime(s) are seperate, free standing matters for purposes of double jeopardy. So if Cheney is in the focus, and if Scooter is convicted in this trial and thinks he is done, one extra flip incentive would be that he can still be charged for conspiracy if that, based on the available facts, is at issue with respect to Cheney et al.
HOwever you feel about him, this trial has to have taken a toll on Libby and his family – litigation is one of the suckier experiences anyone goes through. If he is convicted, knowing that he might have another round coming would have to be disheartening.
Mad Dogs @ 47
My understanding is that Patrick Fitzgerald has even greater protections against being fired than the DOJ Prosecutors (e.g. Eliot Rischardson) that were fired by Bork back in the Nixon era.
That’s simply because Fitz was granted Plenary Powers…which severely restricts any Attorney General or acting Attorney General from preventing Fitz from doing his job. I recall Comey himself saying that even HE, as acting Atty. General, would not have the power to fire Fitz. Subsequently the GAO was asked if an Atty. General could restrict Fitz’s investigations by cutting of funds. The GAO said that since Fitz’s powers were plenary…he acted autonomously of the DOJ and could request funds necessary to undertake his job just as an Atty General could.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Co…..cutor.html
raven and others,
this is a great 2 pager from no less than Sidney Blumenthal – ah the classics . . .
The Long March of Dick Cheney
Ann in AZ @ 68
Balls without brains is such an unfortunate combination.
cinnamonape @ 71
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Cheney or Bush were brought down by a “unitary prosecutor”?
The motions and rulings dealing with whether the spec. pros. was a principal officer pretty much established that Margolis could remove him, and that McNulty (or whoever else becomes Dep AG – Gonzales is recused like Ashcroft) could revoke the delegation of supervision that was made to Margolis and McNulty could remove.
It’s been clear for some time that Fitz has been after Cheney. The “mainstream’s” obsession with Rove is part cleulessness and part cover. We’ve heard this tune before: “He didn’t indict Rove because no crime was committed. Nothing to see here folks!”
Yeah, right.
Oh do I want that smarmy Toensing bitch slammed from here to the Moon!
In Spikey’s Dreams! Cause the scumbag knows a Cheney prosecution puts HIS worthless ass on the line.
Thanks, I needed that!
Woodhall Hollow @ 28
Exactly.
If Bush makes ANY sort of move to save Libby, be it pardon or whatever, it’ll be after November of 2008, so it doesn’t adversely impact the 2008 elections as far as the Republicans are concerned.
He’s betting that Libby’s multi-million-dollar defense kitty will suffice to buy appeals and delaying actions for the next year and a half. But he might not win that bet.
Question for Marcy or anyone else in the court room/media room today? Any impressions/hunches/WAG’s from watching the jury as to which points (on either side) may have scored?
Balls without brains is such an unfortunate combination.
Balls, these draft dodgin lowlifes, don’t make me choke!
Phoenix Woman @ 79
Assuming he cares.
Hell, he could probably use it as leverage over the Republicans up for re-election to make them toe the line.
raven @ 81
Balls, these draft dodgin lowlifes, don’t make me choke!
Well, not physical courage, certainly. But unquestionably superhuman chutzpah.
Shez @ 69
It was the “meatgrinder” Memo…
http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…..X53201.PDF
everything here leads me to believe in my pet theory
I remember being among the first to suggest the only reason rove wasn’t indicted is he rolled
I hate to say it, but if cheney goes down, we will probably owe our debt to rove
no kidding
Mary said:
HOwever you feel about him, this trial has to have taken a toll on Libby and his family – litigation is one of the suckier experiences anyone goes through. If he is convicted, knowing that he might have another round coming would have to be disheartening.
When I think about three thousand dead soldiers, thousands of Iraqis, 500 billion dollar donation to Haliburton, et al., and the attack on Social Security, Medicare and VA benefits, I cannot shed a tear for PNAC author Scooter Libby.
I haven’t read Isikoff’s book, but I was surprised that he was suggesting that “proportionality” concerns weighed against Fitz continuing to investigate after the Libby verdict. Does his book repeat the “no underlying crime” meme?
And hasn’t he heard about how frugal Fitz has been? I think his investigation has only cost a couple of million books over the last 3 plus years (compare to Ken Starr’s $70mm plus over five years).
Thanks Mary at 5:33.
OT
It’s not balls/ovaries. It’s denial, moral decay and the leverage to manipulate the MSM and the legal system to cater to those who feel a sense of entitlement.
If you want examples of balls/ovaries, I suggest Rosa Parks and Hugh Thompson, Jr..
perris @ 85
I would much rather have Rove. I think Rove is still an asset to the Republicans, and Cheney is a liability that they’d like to get out of the way so they can appoint Dubya’s heir.
eli@83
herculean hubris too
Mary @ 75
You have citations for these?
hackworth @ 86
I don’t think it was a plea for sympathy so much as an attempt to determine state of mind, and how Libby might react to the prospect of yet another indictment.
litigatormom @ 87
Okay, I admit it.. I don’t know what meme means. A little help please?
Jay @ 93
Basically an idea that gets repeated and propagated.
Following Fitz’s closing this afternoon, I felt something I have not felt in a long time -kind of clean – and it is a long time since I was “clean for Gene” (McCarthy-1968). Utter thanks to all of you: Marcy – your book is just one part of your great service; Jane – go Jane, you’ll beat it – your beautiful soul is needed; and Christy – aside from your fantastic analysis, I just love being invited into your kitchen, looking at your art, your gardens, or at Peanut’s “blogging.” Soon I will figure how who is whom among the rest. My many thanks!!
Marcy, you SO rock. Can’t possibly express my/our gratitude for such hard work. btw, your first chapter of Anatomy of Deceit should be required reading for every Congressperson and Senator. For every highschool kid for that matter!
Thanks, Eli..
Eli @ 93
I see. My bad. I thought Mary was appealing to her kind liberal sensibilities.
For future reference dictionary.reference.com/
meme:
Eli @ 92
Then the best thing to do is to approach the Prosecutor and cut a deal – offering him every bit of information on the sources of Cheney’s orders, what others did, and any other knowledge relating to actions to obstruct justice or impede the investigation.
He should have thought about this years ago.
EW,
Great stuff today. I thought in the middle of it that my impulsive $100 response to Christy’s appeal this morning couldn’t have bought me a ticket to anything more exciting. When the posts stopped coming at 4:48, I guessed the server was broken and thought evil thoughts [I have since retracted them, since it occured to me that you might have started a new thread - which you had]. But it was plenty exciting. You and eriposte were great as part of Fitz’s argument.
When I read this post earlier on The Next Hurrah, I went to your first Indicting Cheney piece. I was skeptical about the Fitz hiding Cheney in Libby’s Indictment part, as much as I wanted it to be true. But when I listened to [read] Fitz’s closing, I thought, “EW, right again!” It’s sure not hidden any more.
In spite of Jeralyn’s somewhat flat post at Huffington, I personally thought Fitz was on fire today. I sure hope the jury ignited. An acquittal will dampen those flames. A conviction will be kindling for the grand bonfire.
Fingernail biting time…
Thanks again for all you’ve done…
What the hell, Scoots may be a great guy to go bowling with.
Marcy, terrific work. My hands ached just reading along. I think Thirty Beers might have been a more appropriate sign-off today. Not all for you, of course. :)
Slightly OT: In the previous thread, some folks were wondering how the other side was dealing with today’s summations and rebuttal. Wander over to Tom Maguire’s place. Through some technical glitch, Tom can’t get onto his own blog, so Clarice set up tonight’s thread…with a gracious (not) nod to Marcy and FDL for doing the live-blogging that gives her gang something to chat about tonight. Something about the often “garbled” blogging of Fitz’s summation.
Choice nuggets from the comments: Fitz is a moonbat; now it’s proven. Fitz is the one going for jury nullification. If found guilty, Libby will be pardoned. (See, there really are places where both sides can agree.) Justice Schmustice. Fitz sounded rabid. Something about two people and George Soros???
What is it with these guys and George Soros? It’s like a remake of Zelig. Old George is just everywhere.
cinnamonape @
57
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia about another indicted Vice President:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr
Okay, I admit it.. I don’t know what meme means. A little help please?
A meme is like a theme only more propagandistic. Rethugs use memes all the time. Taliking points and memes are run on a continuous loop on Fox News. Valerie Plame was not covert is a meme.
Celtic Music at 5:51 pm
Loved the “personal ad” you left for Fitz on a prior thread.
Jay @ 93
A meme is something like “an idea gene” or “virus” that replicates and propogates.
It doesn’t have to be true. Sucessful memes have certain attributes… and “truthiness” isn’t one of them. How well they sit within the prior nest of memes is useful. Things that attribute blame on the others, or success to oneself is invaluable. Memes are often emotive, rather than rational; appeals to children, kittys, or patriotism are effective propagating memes.
hackworth @ 105
It didn’t occur to me to look it up, I thought it was some sort of blogger shorthand that I wasn’t cool enough to know.
“Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70″
Where their job was to destroy the program. Rummy (called “the Undertaker” there) and Dicky did a pretty good job.
cinnamonape @ 107
I thought truthiness was practically their defining characteristic. Now, *truthfulness* on the other hand…
Jay, IMHO, you are super cool.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 104
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia about another indicted Vice President:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr
I think Cheney might kill his “second” with a shotgun if he took up dueling! But look out FDL’ers…you could receive a gloved slap from Monsieur La Chien-ey!
ok, so
1) accepting a pardon means accepting assumed guilt legally
2) which means Fitz has removed the obstacle of Libby, admission of guilt without doing time is still guilty and
3) why did he lie? to protect Cheney so
4) sealed v. sealed is next on the docket with Rove et al testimony which was not introduced here so it wouldn’t muck up the case against libby
5) cheney is indicted, removed from office
6) bush nominates a new VP just in time for 08 elections!
but now with dems in office that ploy won’t work!
Marcy, you’re probably still beer-thirtying, but I add my thanks (and my $50.07) to you and FDL for this extraordinary day. Not since Peter Rodino’s Nixon impeachment hearings in summer 1974 has democracy been so clearly illuminated.
Thanks to all.
“A cloud over the Vice-President.”
Yup.
========
Who’s Next?
========
heh heh
hackworth @ 105
IIRC, the term was coined by Richard Dawkins.
chaboard @ 55
I dunno about folx in the WH, but there are enough Old Farts out here who DO remember it, and who would make damn sure that such an action would serve as the final straw that would (pardon mixed metaphor) begin the avalanche culminating in his resignation.
Just let him try to fire Fitz!
IIRC, the term was coined by Richard Dawkins.
Is there anything RD can’t do?
as for another VP…they don’t have one. As for the next two years looking good in DC – unlikely.
Best that can be prayed for is that they let in a little truth and start working on some huge problems.
It would seem truth is not in the cards, so more likley is hidding everything and continuing to do wrong.
Mitt’s not doing anything, he could tarnish himself a bit more. Rudy is free if he is not filing for divorce, he could…well I guess he really couldn’t tarnish himself much more than he already is.
Bullseye Woodhall, I had no idea that Richard Dawkins introduced the term.
smapdi @ 117
Can he create a meme so powerful that even he cannot suppress it?
who is financing this politico.com endless parade of schmucks?
is this huffpo for the other side? pool boy, simon, mike allen. All the “respectable” yuckies. I smell propagandism.
redX @ 118
I hear Jeb is available.. then the idiot-child resigns..
think of all the wingnut welfare queens warming up to sing for their supper . . .
mi…mi…. .mi…. .mi. . .mi
oh, and ‘our side’ has memes as well, they just happen to be reality based ; )
my too sense @
54
Yeah, me too “my too!” I had missed that as well. I still want to send any MSM journalist who repeats the idea that this might have been a plum assignment to Niger itself. If you’re up for moderately depressing stuff, this blog has pictures of a Nigerien funeral for a baby who’s died of starvation. Some junket, indeed.
Sorry for the grim note.
THANK YOU MARCY AND EVERYONE!!! I sent a teensy weensy check last week…
If we adapt the song, “and so this is Fitzmas, and what have you done…” I think there should be some seriously burdened stockings for FDL!
urban pirate @ 121
I guess they figured there wasn’t enough Beltway Kewl Kids punditry in the blogosphere itself…
New thread
LHP – I saw your response. Thanks (and I don’t know if it explains my views of the law or the justice system, but it might). I also sent another email to you via CHS just to make sure you’ve got the right EPU Sr.(Though I’m not aware of another prominent attorney with the same name in NYC).
I think Rove and Bush see Cheney as their firewall. They will blame everything
that went wrongon DeadEye.Is the Roger Simon the same asshole as PajamaParty Media? Or are there 2 assholes named Roger Simon?
LHP – I also know you, CHS, etc. are busy so the email may again take some time. That’s cool.
New thread upstairs.
At that point you just walk out of the holodeck.
Has Dick been getting enough money?
“Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”
Has anyone considered that BigDick was referring to himself as “this Pres” and that’s why it was scratched through? He caught his mistaken delusion of referring to himself as opposed to the “other” president w. Kinda changes the meaning of things doesn’t it.
John Casper @106: Glad you got a chuckle.
I actually thought about repeating the offer when PLukasiak asked about an inexpensive, English-speaking country where an old gay guy could relocate. Someone suggested India. I’ve been dabbling with Indian cooking. Seemed like the perfect place to learn the ropes and thought about applying for a housekeeper position with him, should he move. Alas, I don’t think he’d need any scarves, unless he settled in Kashmir.
urban pirate @ 121
I asked at a WaPo chat last week, after Chimpy’s presser, how such a new outfit got their guy (Mike Allen) into the room so quickly, and then got such a stroke from the President. I was surprised the question was chosen for the chat — no doubt there’s bad blood between VandeHei/Harris and their stlll-at-WaPo colleagues. The answer was essentially: we’re surprised too!
Elsewhere, I’ve seen Mike Allen referred to as Gannon/Guckert2.0 which is pretty funny.
6ft6 @ 134
Thanks for the new angle..I plan on using that tomorrow at work, just to keep it stirred up.
6ft6,
I think he started to write:
“Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy the Pres
identasked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”Thereby fully implicating W.
Many thanks to Marcy and all the dedicated FDL writers and contributors who have provided this excellent coverage.
I have been, and still am praying for justice, and peace, that these war-criminal conspirators will be brought
to justice, that their crimes be exposed, their victims consoled with the knowledge that these criminals will not
harm others through their terrible ambitions, and hopefully that the criminals themselves be given the opportunity
to have feel remorse for their mad and deceitful cruelty.
I don’t want this to be about vengeance, as much as I am glad to see this case come so far. I may get jeered
for suggesting this, but I feel some measure of sympathy for Libby, Cheney, and the other conspirators in their
war-crimes, regardless, or perhaps in spite of the arrogant cold ambition that allows them to conduct themselves
in this fashion.
It would be the consummate providential irony for the insane hysteria of the extremists and end-timers, and
these machiavellian opportunists, for a genuine peace to break out in the middle east, despite the best efforts of
those vehemently arguing, campaigning and conspiring for murderous dominance of the region.
I’m probably in tinfoil-isolation for some of my commentary, but I’m grateful for the writing, dedication and
community here, and just want to express my gratitude, my feelings and my hope, as a personal token of
appreciation for FDL and the writers and bloggers who have put so much time and effort into this critically
important ‘community journalism’ investigation and chronicle.
Cheers,
February 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
cinnamonape at 70 says:
IIRC, Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus resigned their office as AG & Asst. AG rather than fire Archibald Cox. Bork was third in command and he did the deed. I always felt that played a large part in him being denied a spot on the Supreme Court. Of course the fact that he was almost certifiably crazy was also a probable factor.
Eli at 72:
Agreed!
TeddySanFran @ 114
RIP, of blessed memory. Now THERE was a guy with courage (aka balls) :) . Thanks for bringing his name back tonight. Senator Sam Ervin wasn’t the only one of the opinion leaders in the Nixon impeachment.
Hey Mary, if you’re still around, wrt the DC circuit’s decision today, is there a possibility of an inverse theory? If these detainees have no standing, than what right do our tax dollars have to fund any contact with them whatsoever? The DC circuit appears to be paving the way for slavery. If you can water board a detainee, why not make them clean you’re room too, while you’re not torturing them?
valletta @ 113
Bush could beat the clock if Cheney resigns immediately (for health reasons)…and nominates someone for VP that is not a partisan gunslinger…and could get approved. Maybe someone like Giuliani…who would get a boost in his campaign.
He could then pardon Libby, Cheney and any other of his indicted gang between November 2008 and leaving office. And then his “Ford” could pardon Bush “for all crimes. charged and uncharged, while he served in the office of President”.
Truly amazing work Marcy. I’ve been reading your posts from the very beginning of the Plame story and can’t thank you enough for all your insights.
Now back to your post above. Where did Cheney go to get the info on Valerie Wilson once he found out about her from Libby or Martin? I have been obsessed for quite some time with this question, as I always thought it was at the center of the criminal act of outing a CIA operative.
As a devoted lurker, I have delurked on several occasions at TNR, here, and Needlenose posing my theory that Cheney went to Bolton. Bolton, on his own or with help from Wurmser or another neocon planted at the CIA or NSA, got Cheney the info and then Bolton told him “go with our friend Judy, she’ll surely get it out there–she’s done it for us successfully before. Go with Judy, Judy, Judy.” A few days later, Scooter and Judy have breakfast at the St. Regis “coffee shop” and he gives her the leak.
I don’t know why I am obsessed with this possible scenario. I think it might be because I have linked together several stories which may (or just as likely may not) be related to this whole thing. They include: 1) the NSA intercepts that Bolton is supposed to have gotten his hands, 2) Bolton as Judy’s source for much of the pre-Iraq lies that were served to us via the NY Times, 3)Bolton’s visit to Judy in jail (around the same time that Judy must have received Scooter’s aspen letter) and 4)Bolton’s reputation as the ultimate henchman.
Anyway, I’d really like to hear what others have to say about this, especially now that it becomes more and more likely that Fitz has the answer.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
David Ehrenstein at 75 says:
David, repeat after me:
God, grant me the courage to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept those I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
How do you define T(r)eason Cheney?
Energy is the most important issue facing our democracy. Taking advantage of 911 and America’s National Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Cheney while overstating the threat to America’s national security morphed the “War on Terror,” into the Iraq War to secure Iraqi Oil, initiated on intentionally, misleading, cherry-picked intelligence. Cheney is “protecting” the interests of the intenational corporate petroleum he represents and is tied. Herein lies the t(r)eason when in the interest of economc/political expediency and profit “Reason,” is replaced by the servile prejudices of policy makers, using the “executive powers” of the presidency of the United States and our military, not for the benefit of society and the general welfare of the governed, but rather to guarantee corporate oil’s profit while enabling America’s oil addiction.”
Self-sacrifice for family and friend in a legitimate “War on Terror” is honorable and a necessary cost in protecting god given “reason” and freedoms, secured by the rule of law, from the ravages of misguided religious and secular intolerances, absolutisms and greed, both foreign and domestic. However, for this American, it is impossible to justify and equate that same cost, to secure a foreign barrel of Iraqi, Al-Anbar Province extracted, “Executive Oil,” predicated lies……..
How do you define T(r)eason Cheney?
“LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR” and then “FLUSH IT ALL AWAY!”
Fantastic job Marci.
PS: J. York, was a real jerk on C-SPAN!!!
Ann in AZ @ 140
You are absolutely right. My bad. Richardson and Ruckleshaus refused to carry Nixon’s water…to FIRE ARCHIE COX.
Bork did, and justified it by saying the resignations could have reached an infinite regression…so why should he resign allowing some lower level appointment to eventually do the deed.
John Casper @ 142
Isn’t slavery really what the PNAC is about. The asserting the freedom to contract in areas beyond the jurisdiction of the United States while denying the right of habeus corpus and hence due process not only to Guantanamo detainees but in the entire conduct of collateral matters arising of the war in Iraq and through the means of a continually reformulating definition of the enemy. Today it was al-Sadr. In the context of the surge it is described as “new rules of engagement.” What does this action in the context of an Iraqi civil war have to do with terrorism? This is state of affairs innuring to the pure benefit of global corporations like Haliburton and the Carlyle group as they market franchises in civilization with no respect to civil due process. It really is a kind of back lash against modernity if not the 14th Amendment.
The entire campaign has been justified by Bush in the terms of liberty but this is a buzz workd for 19th Century colonial/imperial liberty to enclose the oil resources of Iraq as a strategic as a matter of strategic national interest.
Scarecrow had a treasure hunt today in the NYT coverage. Anybody find anything?
“July 16: Cheney (but not Libby) attends Gerald Ford’s birthday party, at which Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell’s husband, is honored. Apparently, Cheney said something to Mitchell about Plame.”
Maybe next time we find out about Andrea Mitchell.
TPhillip @ 66
The innocent “Motherland” of course being the Soviet Union’s word of choice, as they killed 20,000,000 of their own people.
I asked my Russian colleague once, why?
(1) Because they can
(2) To intimidate everyone else
(3) Free labor
Good thing we would never allow a totalitarian government.
smapdi @
117
Is there anything RD can’t do?
Family Feud? Oh, that’s Dawson
Eli @
89
I would much rather have Rove. I think Rove is still an asset to the Republicans, and Cheney is a liability that they’d like to get out of the way so they can appoint Dubya’s heir.
Isn’t it too late for them to “appoint Dubya’s heir” since we won in November? Any appointee has to get a majority approval in BOTH houses, right? IF the Dems are willing to play hardball they could block anyone with any designs on being an heirloom.
the screaming meme-ies
Tug @
21
The problem is Pelosi & Conyers, who now think that they have more important things to do. Remember the warning about “bright shiny objects” as FDL Lesson #1(?) last week? All the things Conyers holds up as “more important” are bright shiny objects– yes, even the war. Conyers worries that if Congress takes up impeachment, it will tie them up for the next two years and they won’t be able to get anything else done. But I think the White House wants us tied up in knots about the war and other things for the next two years, while they continue to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not to mention the rule of law.
But really now, there are 435 representatives. Seems to me that’s enough to devote Conyer’s Judiciary committee to impeachment, while the rest of’em provide oversight on the other things.
Bob in HI
Regarding something that might be added to the timeline. I believe that one of Libby’s staff found a copy of either (or both) of the Wilson article and the Novak article in a safe restricted to Classified and Top Secret materials?
That’s interesting…who put them in there?
Also, is there any reason why Libby would have been the one to “find” the note from the VP that contained the June
12thcomments about Wilson and his wife?I thought that all this stuff was hunted down by his staff. Did Martin or the other Secretary actually find it in their document search (perhaps also in the safe) and showed it to Libby, who then confiscated it?
I recall that this note wasn’t submitted in the mandatory document turn-over and, in fact, wasn’t handed over to FBI Agents Bond and Eckenroyd until later…Libby simply showed it to them. That’s very odd.
Lise @144 – great post. Please ask this again later when Marcy is here to answer because I want to know who she thinks Cheney went to as well.
John Forde – LOL, I was trying to remember what that show was called.
Lisa @ 144
Very nice hypothesis! Like you, I’ve wondered just who Deadeye contacted to find out about Valerie.
I’ve leaned toward Tenet as the Occam Razor’s solution myself, since George “Slam Dunk” Tenet would (and did) happily accommodate anything Deadeye wanted.
How was Tenet to know that Deadeye would have Valerie’s name and occupation betrayed to the press?
And my rejoinder to Georgie would be if a snake bit you once (ala 16 words in SOTU), what makes you think the snake ain’t gonna bite again?
And then lastly, twas my thought that Georgie then got his own revenge by having his CIA legal beagles ask the DOJ to investigate Valerie’s betrayal (knowing full well that Deadeye would be the final shitting-in-his-pants target).
Take that Deadeye! Two can play this game!
Your hypothesis on a Bolton connection with his own domestic snooping apparatus makes for an another interesting curveball (pun intended *g*).
cinnamonape @
91
All of us owe an enormous debt of gratitude to James Comey who appointed Fitz with plenary powers to investigate Plame’s outing and as much time as Fitz decides that he needs to follow the evidence to what Fitz decides to be the end of the trail. Like Cinnamonape, I don’t believe that anyone in the Justice Department has the power to shut down Fitz’s investigation. I’m also interested to know what source Mary relied on in reaching a contrary opinion.
Since Fitz now appears to be targeting Cheney and he also appears to have amassed considerable evidence against him – not counting stuff that he did not reveal in Libby’s trial – I would not be surprised to see King George dial up some of that old deja vu hoo when Nixon fired Archibald Cox. After all, isn’t what deciders do hoo?
Bush doesn’t give a damn about how riled up everybody will get. Armed with his ludicrous unitary theory of the executive, I believe he’d act to protect Cheney so that Darth Vader will be there with him when he gives the order to nuke Iran hoo. Now, I ain’t saying that he’s likely to disappear Fitz and his staff into a penthouse at Guantanamo because convicting Libby and prosecuting Cheney constitutes giving aid to the terrists, but then again . . .
Political suicide? “Suicide schmooicide!” said the King. We’re watching a very high stakes game in progress and, despite my doomsday boo-hoo scenario, I really don’t know how this is going to end.
Somebody is going to have to take the keys away from the Decider.
Some of you have asked, “how have the right wing blogs covered the trial?” So I decided to do a little research. I googled right conservative blogs and tried several that came up in the search. Here’s the big news: NONE of them, not a single one, covered the trial. Not only was there no coverage, the trial wasn’t even mentioned. Perhaps it was because of the other pressing issues that did deserve discussion. For example, there was a blog on abortion (they were against it), a discussion on why God chose Bush to be our leader (he holds true to his convictions and is a soldier in the “conservative christian spiritual warfare”) and Congress isn’t supporting the troops (reference to veterans’ poor treatment at Walter Reed). I did find a rather interesting disclaimer of sorts here: http://blithered.blogspot.com/ about how a conservative blog has shut down because the right wing supports Bush, but Bush has betrayed Conservatism (and all Americans for that matter). One blog that came up in the search and mentioned the Libby trial as well as FDL’s liveblogging of the trial was Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish. I don’t feel that Sullivan’s blog counts as “right wing”, however, as was demonstrated by some comments claiming Sullivan was “PC”. So he’s been outed, so to speak, by the right wing community.
Maybe we should pony up for transcripts of Fitz’s rebuttal?
Coming late to the party… now why did Val (or whoever) think this task came from the OVP? Need to surf…
I wonder if that same safe containsany documents fromthe Italian deception?
David Ehrenstein @
76
I despise Toenisng, but hope to express my contempt without misogyny or celebration of violence against women.
Of course, I never understood why the grown-ups laughed at Jackie Gleason – perhaps I’m merely a slow developer in these areas.
So when I no longer treat victims of domestic violence, perhaps I’ll finally get the joke behind “To the moon, Alice! To the moon!”
Today, however, I’m so uncomfortable about comment 76 that silence would be assent.
___________________________
And now back to the thread…..
Does anyone know if there will be a politicstv video tonight?
Swopa, are you around? Got a take on the trial today that you would like to share?
Here come da judge.
-
Mad Dogs @ 16
No, The attorney /client privledge would only apply to conversations between Shooter and Scooter while Scooter was Shooter’s lawyer.
Now say they tree times fast!
Question for the lawyers who comment here: If Bush does pardon Libby (and is forced to do so fairly soon to keep him from turning on Cheney/Bush), does that pardon actually keep Libbt from being forced to testify? I have seen cases where a prosecutor grants immunity from prosecution to a participant so as to be able to force him/her to testify; refusing to testify after being granted immunity is contempt of court and thereby a new crime which can be punished. In other words, would a presidential pardon for past misdeeds really shiel Libby from further prosecution if he refused to testify or lied again under oath?
blue e @ 165
Such timing! But I don’t have a take just yet — I’ve been swamped with work for the past week (the price for having been in DC the week before), and I’m just now surfacing.
I know – I’m going through withdrawal. I’m sure our intrepid bloggers are having a nice dinner together – but it’s murder for those of us who are waiting for a debrief about what it was like in court today and what their opinion is about the verdict.
I hope we hear something tonight.
Jane has today’s Big Close upstairs
P J Evans @ 161
I’d definitely pitch in. EW did her best but I think his rebuttle was just too complex and his talking too fast for her to keep up.
Mad Dogs @ 47
They can fire him as US Att’y for NDIL but not as Special Council. It would be hard, but not impossile for him to go forward.
chaboard @ 55
1) Not easily
2) yes
lhp- new thread! Hope you got something to eat.
lhp -
Please forgive my slow neurons, but if Fitz is both US Atty for NDIL and Special Counsel, and Torturer General Gonzales without cause sacked Fitz from NDIL, what powers would be lost to Fitz and his Plamegate investigation? [here I’m thinking DOJ powers].
Or would the constraining effect be a reduction in the resources available to Fitz from the DOJ?
My ignorant inquring mind wants to know :)
looseheadprop @ 173
chaboard @ 80
The ONLY perdson other tha judge Walton to provoke any reactipon from the jury was PAt.
He got them tolaugh, tonod. At one point he asked arhetorical questrionand one juror began toanswer. Even Loibby reacted to the Fitz summation
LHP- too funny. Your typos are an oeuvre uniquie.
EPU’d but cinnamonape – here’s a link to Fitzgerald’s filing,
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/…..ismiss.pdf
where he lays out his position that he is not acting as an unconstitutionally appointed principal officer because the Acting Attorney General can remove him any time AT WILL. The Judge went with that argument in his ruling – it’s available from PACER and maybe elsewhere – I can get it through PACER but can’t link it for you.
BTW – color me not such a Comey fan and not so in favor of handling the Congressional pressure for an Independent Prosecutor – who would have had a far broader scope – than the Spec Counsel vehicle that we ended up with – which have a very limited scope. In essence, Comey protected the Exec from having anything other than a very very targeted investigation. Fitzgerald, for example, couldn’t have filed charges on the leaked NIE – under his Spec COunsel appointment – if he had wanted to bc as per the appointment, he had a very narrow scope. The leak of a particular item of classified information and any crimes arising from that investigation. Not the leak of any ealier or other bits of classified info.
Plenary authority to clean the second bicuspid isn’t going to help someone in need of a root canal in their molar.
IMO, we’d have been much better off if Comey hadn’t brokered the recusal deal and we’d had a full blown Indep. Counsel appointed (Fitzgerald or someone else).
J. Thomason at 6:31 pm
I think you make an excellent point about anti-modernity. I would nuance it a little more and say that they are selectively anti-modern. At Church on Sunday, the earth is 6,000 years old. The other six days a week they depend on science that knows that the earth’s age is 4 – 6 billion years old, to tell them where to drill for oil.
More EPU’d John @142 – yes, I think a taxpayer suit would be able to cover slightly different territory. Basically, I think the whole of the MCA, without regard to habeas, is an unconstitutional bill of attander – allowing for pains and penalties based on Executive fiat (the MCA makes the President’s determination that someone was an illegal enemy combatant conclusive as to their status – a bill allowing an Executive to conclusively name anyone he wishes an enemy of the nation and mete out kidnapping and punishments including stripping, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, etc. – and all without any real trial (by the time status review tribunals were held, years after transport and detention, if those tribunals had found anyone was NOT an illegal enemy combatant, that would mean they had a “protected person” under the Geneva Conventions and that they had been engaged in years of serious breaches of the Conventions (aka war crimes) with respect to those detainees. So a tribunal would have to de facto find that the US was engaged in war crimes if it found ANYONE to be other than an illegal enemy combatant. That’s why everyone who was released was found to be “no longer” an enemy combatant. Careful wording so that the war crimes can be evaded by label. Unfortunately for them, Hamdan didn’t buy it. Unfortunately for our nation, Congress did and fell over themselves to enact the MCA.
But yes, I think its an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which could void other provisions, including the repeal of habeas. There are also many arugments left unaddressed on habeas and the ultimate argument of, if Congress did have the power to repeal, could they repeal to facilitate an unconstitutional means – allowing Executive fiat detention and punishment specifically barred by the Consitution to continue without judicial review. I think the answer is pretty clearly no, but I haven’t seen the argument really made strongly before a court and we have had some appointments that make you wonder about the continued validity of the Sup Ct – period.
John Casper @
180
You still think oil is liquified ferns and dinosaurs, eh? Not so. God made the oil straight out. They just forgot to mention which day he made it in Genesis [probably the first - “heavens and earth”].
Mason/Cinnamonape:
Here’s a try at a Pacer link on Walton’s decision about Fitzgerald’s powers (pacer says there’s no charge for the memorandum opinions, so maybe the link will work?)
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?817014275062832-L_186_0-1
If the link doesn’t work, on p 22, the Court holds that the “Special Counsel’s jurisdiction is restricted to the investigation and prosecution of the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity and violations of federal law that arise during the course of that investigation.”
p. 26 “Moreover, it is axiomatic that, at any time, the Deputy Attorney General who delegated to the Special Counsel his authority may revoke that delegation.”
p.27 “His authority is therefore confined to the narrow objective of accomplishing the specific mandate he was given.”
p28 “Here, the Special Counsel is essentially removable at will by the Deputy Attorney General.”
p. 29 “Specifically, the Special Counsel ‘can only act within the scope of the jurisdiction that has been granted by the [Deputy Attorney General]’”
Reading between the lines of Fitz’s closing statement it’s pretty clear that his team is a massive wrecking ball. It has perfect aim and has full momentum.
They were very effective on Libby’s motivation. Let’s see if they are effective enough to unravel Cheney’s too.
I do believe that, for better or worse, we are in for an even heavier prosecution of lies and motivation.
The WHIG’s sell job to Congress and America was blatantly illegal and the casualties will not be relegated to only the sands of Iraq.
The sand had a much different origin.
As was said: The public deserves to know the truth. That is what sustains us as a model society, if we can.
Ooh ooh, I’ve got an addition:
Sunday, September 14, 2003: Press The Meat
GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator
————
By the way, this interview seems to be almost entirely composed of an impressive number of outlandish Cheney claims that with today’s knowledge are obvious whoppers.
One of my particular favorites:
Find your own!
I have lived in hope that Fitzgerald’s rather trivial (as regards the actual espionage treasonous crime) indictment and prosecution of Libby was designed to root out the facts of the crime itself and the real mother of it.
If so, his strategy worked rather well as the trial made it clear that Cheney was the leak-inventor, purveyor of the information on Plame and designer of the scheme to take vengeance on Wilson. And it was further obvious that Libby would never make such momentous moves except on his orders. Apparently Cheney didn’t even leave the smallest most irrelevant decisions to subordinates.
There’s one question however that haunts me. Why didn’t Fitzgerald put Cheney on the stand and see if he is as honest as Clinton was or what. It would all be sworn-under-oath testimony that could be revisited should Cheney himself go on trial. The arrogant prick just might have lost his temper and really blown it. Any number of things could have happened; all good. There is no way he could have saved Libby or escaped with his own skin.
Now, if Cheney is indicted and tried, he can avoid the witness stand altogether.
Fitzgerald is a smart guy, but I think he missed a golden opportunity to get to the truth and the criminal mastermind.
I think that when they say they were “obsessed with getting Iraq right,” they mean they were obsessed with getting the Iraq disinformation campaign right. I think you can just add “disinformation campaign” to every noun that they use to describe what they are doing. For example, Bush said that correcting the problems of healthcare system is very important. I do not happen to believe it is important to him at all. However, if he rephrased it to “The healthcare system disinformation campaign is important,” I would believe him.
Very simply, you’ve done a huge service with your coverage of the trials. I am in awe.