"Poor" Dick Cheney

Looks like the story ain’t over yet for our friend Dick…

[quote]Cheney told top aide of CIA officer: report
Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff learned about the CIA officer at the heart of a leak investigation in a conversation with Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

…[/quote]
today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic … CHENEY.xml

That wouldn’t neccessarily be a crime would it? Cheney telling his chief of staff that Plame is in the CIA?
It might point to perjury by Mr. Libby, who said he learned it from reporters.

Can’t wait to get rid of this idiot

If we got rid of all the idiots, who would be left?

This is old news being rebottled. There was a memo that was sent to someone on Air Force One after Joe Wilson wrote his scathing article. The matter was widely discussed among staff without anyone outing Plame or being aware that this was an issue. There was follow up as to how it happened and there was mention of his wife having gotten him the job since she worked at the CIA. This is old news. Now, the difficulty will be proving that a crime was committed. There was none so that is clearly why the prosecution is now looking at indictments based on obstruction of justice and perjury which may also be hard to prove. Otherwise, if there had been a crime, why isn’t this case being prosecuted based on the Espionage Act? hmmmm?

I predict that if and when any final indictments take place, they take place on peripheral soft targets. There is no evidence of any crime especially since Plame has had a desk job for six years. Anyway, I am sure that they will be creative but … now that Miller is out of the picture, the last questions regarding this case are finally being wrapped up. IF the administration was so worried, why not just insist on the journalistic privilege and demand that Miller not answer any of the questions? Think about it.

Like you said - wait and see…

I believe that Rove and Libby will most likely be indicted but what will the crime be? Alternatively, try to tell me what aspect of the Espionage Act they can or would be tried under? No, they will be indicted but ultimately I do not believe that the prosecution can make the case that would result in them being forced from office. Libby might resign and even Rove might but I think that their work will continue. They need not be in office for this to happen. More inconvenient but not insurmountable.

We will know by Oct 27. I predict the worst. Indictments on obstruction of justice. Then, this will enter another one to two years of merry-go-round by which time the administration will be close to winding down anyway. Job well done. Next.

[quote=“Richardm”]That wouldn’t neccessarily be a crime would it? Cheney telling his chief of staff that Plame is in the CIA?
It might point to perjury by Mr. Libby, who said he learned it from reporters.[/quote]
True, but if Fitzgerald decides that a crime was committed by outing Plame in the first place, this would implicate old Dick as being part of that conspiracy.

Vegetation? Roaches?

The world! It would be MINE! ALL MINE!
HAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

This reminds me of those sadsack days when Clinton supporters were spinning the sophistry that Clinton was somehow above being held accountable for the crime of perjury.

I really had high hopes that George Bush was going to restore the honor of the White House but his administration seems to have done the impossible – sunk to even lower depths than the Clinton presidency.

Wow, fred, you really are connected, aren’t you?

[quote=“NYT”]On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program “Meet the Press,” compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, “where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime.”

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

President Bush said several weeks ago that Mr. Fitzgerald had handled the case in “a very dignified way,” making it more difficult for Republicans to portray him negatively.

But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday. Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works. [/quote]

spook, I think you’re right: they’re both sad. I just never had hopes for anything better from Bush. From some in his administration, yes, but not from him, nor Cheney.

poor guy, he’s got enough to worry about…

-18 heart attacks

-a lesbian daughter

-babysitting Dubya

and now this…

Has it really been 18 heart attacks? That many? Holy crap. :astonished:

[quote=“Hondu Grease”]poor guy, he’s got enough to worry about…

-a lesbian daughter

[/quote]

I just [i]l-o-v-e[/i] how “liberals” go after homosexuals.

He’s only the VP. Let him go. It could have been worse.

What good would this have done? Shown the administration’s lack of legal knowledge?

The privilege, where it exists, rests with the journalist. Where would the administration have standing to demand journalistic privilege? Who would they be demanding it to? A federal court? Fitzgerald? Miller?

Further, 31 states and the District of Columbia recognize journalistic privilege through press shield laws. However, there is no federal or constitutional recognition of journalistic privilege that I know of which would apply to the present case.

Last time I checked, obstruction of justice and perjury were crimes.

[quote=“Danimal”][quote=“fred smith”]
Now, the difficulty will be proving that a crime was committed. There was none so that is clearly why the prosecution is now looking at indictments based on obstruction of justice and perjury which may also be hard to prove. Otherwise, if there had been a crime, why isn’t this case being prosecuted based on the Espionage Act? hmmmm?
[/quote]
Last time I checked, obstruction of justice and perjury were crimes.[/quote]

And I don

Isn’t Dick one of the richest people in the USA?