
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.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
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