Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Cheney ordered the leak then he is the head of the conspiracy:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:13 AM
Original message
If Cheney ordered the leak then he is the head of the conspiracy:
And he will be indicted.

Even if he is not indicted, he willbe compelled to testify as a witness for the defense.

The fun part is going go be seeing him trying to wiggle out of testifying on the basis on executive privilege or National security grounds. That alone goes to SCOTUS and drags this out for the rest of the term. Think that is why &* wanted Meiers on the court?

Talk about death by 1,000 cuts.

Many many republicans will ask him to step down if indcicted becasue he will start draggint the party down with him.

Hes is the fascinating thing White House Counsel has to buile a mile-wide and mile deep firewall between Cheney and Libby. It actually should have been done months ago, If they have not done that and the two have been chatting about a game plan they ahve to stop as soon as the indictments call down.. because then it becomes obstruction,

Cheney's personal Lawyer better advise him of such or this whole cabal is open for criminal investigation starting with Yellow Cake and the energy taskforce



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. At the least, he lied to the Grand Jury
and was a major part of the cover up and continued sliming of the Wilsons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. I don't think he ever went before the grand jury. He did have a
private conversation with Fitzgerald. He did not take an oath, which would have been redundant because lying to a federal prosecutor is a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Even if the prosecutor did the interview privately
he was still giving testimony to the Grand Jury because they called him to answer questions for their investigation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Good point! I just wanted to clarify to people he did not actually go
before the grand jury.

He and Bush made such a big stink about not testifying to the Grand Jury and not taking an oath when they finally did meet with Fitzgerald, I just wanted to keep the facts straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. How are you going to prove he ordered it?
At least with Nixon, there were tapes. I doubt that Cheney was bugging himself.

Only way it can be proved that it happened (Cheney conspired to smear Wilson) is documents(records, tapes, etc.) or someone squealing.

Unless Fitzy has that, then Cheney will be a sidebar at best.

Suspicious, yes. Logical, yes, but provable in court, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Smearing Wlson is not an indictable offense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yup, just good ol'fashioned Politics
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yep, you've got that rw talking point nailed.
But who thinks this is just about Wilson?

It seems Fitzgerald's search for motive has taken him into the realm of the forged yellowcake documents.

And that IMO turned the investigation in a different direction. That could easily have resulted in 8 redacted pages.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Which brings up the question of
who did the deed (fake the docs).

If it was Chalabi (sp?), well we know he was working with Big Dick on the Iraqi Project and then does push us into the realm of how the war drums were beaten, but....

There is one BIG difference between THIS scandal and Watergate (what everybody seems to have on the back of their mind) and that is in Watergate, there was both a Special Prosecutor and a Senate Hearing.

It was the Senate Hearing that really pulled the American People into the scandal. As long as the ReThugs hold Congress there can be no real forum for outing the problem as we see it (lying to go to war and the criminals that did it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Don't give up on the drive for political survival...
A majority of the American people want Bush impeached if he lied about the evidence for going to war.

And believe it or not there are still some Law and Order republicans in Congress.

If Fitzgerald presents arguments that clearly imply Bush did mislead the government and the American people, there could be a nexus of those republicans and the democrats.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. I agee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. I am not saying its right
I am just saying that smearing wilson by itself is not a crime. It is not libel it is not slander, Outing Plame is a crime. Claming up about how that came to hapeen is obstruction. Lying to a grand Jury is perjry.


But semaring WIlson is not a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Law of Unintended Consequences - they wanted to smear him,
and tried to say his wife sent him - that was the smear: not credible b/c wife sent him.

But here is my problem: So what the guy's wife sent him? - Why is that a bad thing? She worked for the CIA - wouldn't that suggest he would be in sync with the government? Clearly WH thought there was a negative implication there - that the guy was biased because married to a CIA person - why would a spouse of a CIA person be biased? And biased against whom - the WH?

This was all part of the battle between the WH's plan to go to war in absence of proof and the CIA who was fighting to make sure the truth came out.

I think Cheney wanted to smear Wilson and was prepared to do anything at all to accomplish that - he thought he could get away with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think he ordered that Wilson's credibility be smeared, and as
we know - this administration takes the scorched earth approach to smearing. There is no question in my mind that once Cheney heard that a former US ambassador went to Niger at the CIA's request and came back saying there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy the stuff - Cheney want to take down that US ambassador. He wanted to find him, and take him down.

Does anyone disagree with me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. I think a conspiracy is obvious and here's why:
While it is not technically illegal for him to be discussing a specific CIA agent, why the hell is he discussing the identity of THAT particular agent at THAT particular time? It is obvious when you look at it that he is disclosing this information to Libby, who disclosed it either directly, or through his toadies, in an organized campaign to leak. There was no reason for him to bring that up otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
9. Cheney will never go on trial
Bush will pardon him because of national security, you know, terra. He should have to step down from the vice presidency, but that has been speculated on for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
12. They want you to believe....
that Cheney was the mastermind of the conspiracy.
In essence, they are throwing him overboard in
order to protect the president. Dubya will
just shrug, smirk and play dumb.. and it will
all be as fake as his Texas accent.
Maybe one of the conspirators will get
a flash of patriotic duty and provide
evidence to impeach. I hope they don't
let the chimp get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC