Libby Verdict: What about Cheney?

I think a lot of the interest in the Libby trial has been the repercussions to Vice President Cheney if Libby was convicted.

During closing arguments, Fitzgerald said there was a cloud over the White House and the Vice President.

At the press conference today, Fitzgerald was very clear that he does not expect to bring additional charges in the case. They are all going back to their day jobs. The investigation is now inactive.

Joseph Wilson's statement, through his lawyers, is here.
He will be on MSNBC's Countdown and CNN's Larry King Live tonight.

< Libby Verdict : Guilty of Four Counts | Libby Juror Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The congressional (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    intelligence committees should immediately begin hearings into the actions by the Bush administration to manipulate intelligence that they used to defraud us into the war in Iraq.

    Starting to open the window (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Madison Guy on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    I'm sure Libby will eventually be pardoned out of the convictions, but the trial has created an immense public record that will help open the window to the truth when the Wilson civil case goes to trial.

    Meanwhile, I can't help wondering: Did Libby's PowerPoint slides help convict him? People rely on stories to enliven factual information with resonance and meaning. Packaging too much data as bullet points may confuse your audience. It may also convince them that you are trying to hide behind data, or that you are trying to manipulate them with bullet points because your story doesn't make any sense. Which, come to think of it, was probably true in Libby's case.

    Dang! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by annefrank on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    No additional charges for Darth Cheney!

    emboldening (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by tworivers on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    Let's not forget that as a result of this leak, Brewster Jennings, a carefully constructed CIA cover organization that tracked WMD, was destroyed.  

    Thanks to our loose-lipped friends in the White House, we are less safe.  How does Mr. Cheney, who constantly speaks of people "emboldening" the terrorists, feel about having made it more difficult to track WMD, I wonder?  

    I tend to agree with.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dutchfox on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    The Tomb -

    All this tells you a lot about how things are done in Washington. The criminal enterprise that Wilson tried to expose is left well alone, while his wife made redundant, and he is repeatedly attacked and slandered by stampeding hordes of buffoons. Libby goes down because he was caught telling fibs to protect his masters, but no one cares who he was protecting or why, and no one will try to find out. The Iraq war will, on some estimates, cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion by the time it's finished. It looks as if the imperial strategy is failing badly and is causing some alarm in segments of the American ruling class. However, no one in the current administration will suffer serious or permanent damage as things presently stand - the costs of empire are largely externalised to its victims - and quite a lot of people close to the administration have done rather well out of the venture. The Democrats are still largely convinced of the legitimacy of the effort, are determined to support it more intensely and may even try to take it further afield. They will appreciate this conviction because it hurts the Republicans, as it should. But they would no more seek further indictments or probe further into the issues than they would participate in a daisy-chain of arse-kicking, since one runs the risk of establishing troublesome precedents. So it's all coming down on Lewis Libby. According to Libby, he got the name 'Scooter' because his Daddy noticed how fast he could move across his little crib when he was a baby. He has a new crib to scoot around in for a few years.

    Wishful Thinking (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Fritz on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    Like the juror said, they felt sorry for Libby, but it was Libby's actions of his own that put him in harms way.  I think the jury did an excellent job.  If this conservative is pleased that Libby got his due, then let's put behind us that Clinton was only about a bj.  Lying in the judicial system has consequences.

    Um...no (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by blksista on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    It's not over.

    Fitz may indeed fold up his tent, but Scooter's loyalty to the Liars-in-Chief (Bush-Cheney) is going to be severely tested once those appeals for a new trial and against the verdict are denied.

    The jurors were convinced that Rove and Cheney were complicit and made Scooter a patsy for their crimes.  They didn't wanna convict without these guys, but they had to.

    The ball is in Congress' court.

    BTW, Howard Dean got up there on MSNBC and said that a presidential pardon would shut Libby up, and most strongly suggested that it doesn't happen.

    I, for one, agree.


    It's Over (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fritz on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    Congress has no authority to investigate internal Executive Branch deliberations.  If the jury really thought Libby was a sacrificial lamb, they would have nullified the indictments, they didn't.

    Say what!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:37:10 PM EST
      I don't know where you could possibly have got the idea Congress has no authority to investigate the Executive Branch but that's so wrong it is incredible anyone could think it. It's a huge part of what congress has always done.

      As for what the jury would have done, i don't know how you can speak for the jury or why we should accept your assertion over the comment of the one juror who indicated they did question whether Libby was the "fall guy" but understood that was not what the issues they were to decide entailed.


    No Authority to investigate? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    Oh really? I gather you are not of the strict constructionist school of constitutional interpretation. Madison et al would find that statement astounding.


    Why?? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    They didn't wanna convict without these guys, but they had to.

    They didn't have to do anything. A jury is free to decide anything.


    And Howard Dean is Bush's boss?? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    Some differences (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    1. President Clinton was acquitted of perjury in the only trial he had on the subject.
    2, President Clinton's actions harmed his family, not the country; Libby and his co conspirators outed  a covert agent and an entire CIA front.


    Leave Clintron out. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:17:13 PM EST
    Yes it does, but leave Clinton out.

    After all, all he lost was his license to practice for a period of time.


    Classic ppj (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    Yes it does, but leave Clinton out.

    and then he goes on to talk about Clinton.



    Enjoy your win. (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    Yes, I thought it necessary to point out what happened to Hillary's husband.

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (4.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Sailor on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    The adults here were talking about libby, who was actually convicted by a jury of perjury, (something that never happened to clinton.)

    But rethuglican apologists, like cheney, will always insist that the American justice system did scooter wrong. Even after it was proved he lied (at least) nine times.

    Personally, I think cheney is signaling scooter that the admin still has his back ... after throwing him under the bus.

    Good thing there is an oppo party in the other branch that can investigate the crimes that the bush regime has committed.


    Cheney Resign? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    Interesting thoughts Cheney Resigns?

    What about a Bush Pardon ala Clinton and Bush I on the way out the door?

    Can libby stay out of jail long enough?  

    What does Bush have to loose by pardoning him now?  Everyone that likes him thinks Libby is not guilty and everyone who dislikes him thinks he is.  

    And everyone on that silly jury thing... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    ...found him guilty.  They at least deserve as much mention as partisan gawkers.

    I feel sorry for the jury. (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    I think they knew this was politics, and nothing elese.

    They embarassed themselves.


    No surprise (4.66 / 3) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    That ppj thinks it fine to lie, make false statememts and obstruct justice.

    They had the choice of nullifying. We know that would be your choice.


    Really (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    Perhaps your brush is a bit broad here:
    Everyone that likes him thinks Libby is not guilty and everyone who dislikes him thinks he is.
    Really? Does that mean that the jury did not like him?

    Besides the jury I think that there are some who like him that think he is guilty.


    Cheney (none / 0) (#21)
    by wlgriffi on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    "Interesting thoughts Cheney Resigns?"

    It is interesting that this morning the news broke that Cheney had a "serious" medical problem.


    I'm thinking.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    the odds are very good for a pardon.  I don't see Bush running for any other office....or him getting any less popular for that matter.  Those who are with him now will be forever.  He could start drinking and they'd blame liberals for stressing him out.

    Libby is out on bail for at least a few months...I wouldn't be surprised if he never sees a cage.  Shame too...he might learn something about how we do things.


    The Juror said it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    They felt BAD for Libby, in that they felt he was the sacrificial lamb. But the law is the law, as so many conservatives just love to point out.

    Wilson (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    All we learned is that Libby meandered enough to get charged with perjury (not with outing Valerie Plame); how is a perjury conviction going to win over a civil jury on an outing charge?  Fitz is quitting while he is ahead and is not charging anyone with leaking the identity of an allegedly covert CIA agent.  Wilson's crew talks about Cheney "orchestrating" things, but then either Congress can initiate an impeachment or a prosecutor can indict Cheney after he leaves office.
    Ironically, if Libby had refused to answer and pled the fifth at the grand jury (since everyone here thinks he outed Plame, he could have), then there would be no perjury indictment.  Since no one was charged with outing Plame, Libby would be scot-free.  The lesson is to never testify in front of a grand jury.

    that's a very good idea (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:27:25 PM EST
     and almost always the advice a lawyer gives anyone who is either a target or subject of a GJ investigation-- but in this particular case the POLITICAL aspects were huge. People made the decision to testify for political reasons when it was avery perilous course from a legal standpoint.

    Good one! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    The lesson is to never testify in front of a grand jury.

    It's not "optional."

    They can compel your testimony, and it's a good idea to tell the truth when they do.


    Except for .. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:15:42 AM EST
     when one asserts the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination -- which is what one's lawyers normally tell the prosecutor the target  client will do if subpoenaed. The prsecutor can still enforce the subpoena and compel appearance (often the prosecutor does not because little is accomplished by doing so) but the target witness can refuse to answer questions unless granted use immunity.

      For political reasons the targets here did not want to do that and appeared. It is also worth noting that in this particular case Libby would not have been protected from THIS prosecution even if he had testified under immunity because immunity does not extend to perjury committed during the immunized teatimony.  



    Libby Case & Verdict???? (none / 0) (#10)
    by kwgrlup on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    i wonder if having the testimony, statements from court and the now the on record fact being stated both in court and in the post-verdict statement by Fitz of Ms. Wilson's covert status how much all will be of help to the Wilson's in their civil case??? i certainly hope it makes their case stronger than it already was.... i wish all the luck i can send to the Wilson family!

    Now we can only hope that the congress will wake up and have hearings on what has REALLY been going on in this nest of liars & criminals in and surrounding OUR White House, they seem to me to make the Capones seem tame in comparison. Nixon must be spinning in his grave at how little he got away with compared to these guys, but then again, most of them were involved back then too...

    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    Fitz has passed the ball to congress where the whole issue of how we wound up in Iraq belongs. No prosecuter would touch any charge of outing an agent given the context of Plame. It would fall flat on its face due to the secret nature of CIA and classified docs all of would be needed for a coviction. We can thank Fitzgerald for not wasting taxpayers $$ on a case that would end up fizzling out due to greymail.

    The public wants an investigation of the events which led us into the Iraq war.


    Why Russert? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jonwash on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    Has anyone speculated why Mr Libby would say he got the information from Russert when he knew it would be checked and disputed?  This has never made any sense to me.

    Arrogance (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    Ashcroft was leading the investigation. All the point men were in lockstep at that point. These guys never thought it would go anywhere and Russert was their man.

    Well, if he knew that it would be checked... (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    Have you considered that he might be telling the truth?

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:56:03 PM EST
    Have you considered that he might be telling the truth?

    Considering the track record of the administration for telling the truth, why bother?  You get better odds from Powerball.

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me thousands of times over six years, and my name must be Jim.

    If there were a con artist in your community, he would drop in on you every morning, and quit for the day at noon.  Six years, and every time somebody yells, "Wolf!" Jim still believes it.  You are Charlie Brown to Bush's Lucy and you NEVER, EVER LEARN.


    I have ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:51:09 AM EST
      and I'm sure the jury did---  unlike us, after hearing all the evidence presented in a fair trial in which Libby was afforded  opportunity to defend himself.

       The jury decided he wasn't telling the truth.

     Libby now has full opportunity to appeal any rulings by the court  he preserved with objections.

      You don't have to like the verdict or agree with it but i fail to see where you have any grounds for impugning it or the process from which it resulted.



    Plame's Identity As Classified Information (none / 0) (#17)
    by Martskers on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    I was one of the questioners during your WaPo chat. I asked you about whether action would be taken to fire the leakers of classified information, or whether their security clearance would be revoked, given that it was established by uncontroverted, sworn testimony that Plame's identity had been leaked.

    You responded by saying that the charge of leaking classified information had neither been brought nor determined in the verdict.

    The fact no one was charged with violation of the IIPA doesn't mean Plame's identity wasn't classified, since the IIPA requires proof beyond the mere classification of the outed agent's identity (i.e., covert status, as defined by the statute).

    In fact, the indictment states that Plame's identity was classified (as did Fitz during his post-indictment and post-verdict news conferences), and there's no question the fact that Rove and Cheney were implicated as leakers during the trial was established (and never rebutted). Admittedly, the jury didn't have to weigh in on whether or not Plame's identity was classified, but that's irrelevant insofar as taking administrative action against the leakers, isn't it?

    Given that, isn't the onus now on the White House to follow through on its promise to fire at least Rove (of course, Cheney can't be fired), and to revoke the security clearance of BOTH Cheney and Rove for violating the oath both of them took not to reveal classified information?

    Political Pressure (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    The problem you have is that we now know that Armitage leaked Plame, and we now know that Plame was not covert.

    And Fitzgerald said, from your link:

    FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

    I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

    FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

    Now since the investigation was to determine who leaked the name of a "covert" agent, and since we now know:

    1. She was not covert. If she had been obviously
    Fitzgerald would have charged Libby and Armitage.

    1. Since she was not, and since Fitzgerald knew all this, why didn't he just fold the investigation and go home? After all, he had a day job.

    2. Fitzgerald could not. The politcal pressure was huge, and he had to indict and convict someone.

    Libby made the mistake of saying anything. He should have just said:

    My memory is clouded. I don't remember. That may be right, I don't know.


    a couple of points (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:59:57 PM EST
     We know armitage was A leaker; that knowledge does not compel the conlucion he was the ONLY leaker.

      Second, we simply do not know -- and may never-- whther or not Plame was "covert" within the meaning of IIPA. That Fitzgerald chose not to indict anyone for the disclosure could have several explanations. One is that she was not "covert" but others include that he believed the "leaks" were not made with requisite intent, that he believed that the leakers did not learn her identity from classified sources or simply that he thought the evidence made for less than a compelling case.


    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    So, he was sent out to find out if there were "leakers?"

    Leakers of what? If the consideration was that she was covert, then after one leaker, that was no longer true. And that one leaker was Armitage.

    And wasn't the original charges by the CIA that a covert agent had been outed??

    So it is obvious that she wasn't covert, or Fitzgerald would have charged that.

    There was no underlaying crime. Fitzgerald must have known that on day two of the investigation. Why he proceedde remains a mystery.


    You just totally ignore (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:21:24 AM EST
    what I wrote.

      It is possible that she was "covert" and that the decisoin not to prosecute people for disclosing her staus was based on other considerations.

      Just because Fitzgeral knew early on that Armitage disclosed does not in any way mean the investigation should have shut down because it remained possible other people violated the law.

     OR he may have felt people were already obstructing or attempting to obstruct the investigation and used the GJ's power to see if any would do so in a manner he could readily prove in court?

      Do you think that is wrong?



    Pls remember, I'm not an attorney. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:08:08 AM EST
    My point was, how can you have multiple leakers?

    After the information is in the public domain, you can't take it back. Are you suggesting that he was looking for a group of people who went:

    1, 3, 3, Leak!!!

    Okay my bad and I apologize. ;-)

    But does this make my question/comment clear??


    You can have multiiple leakers (none / 0) (#67)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:30:13 PM EST
     if more than one person leaks. That's a tautuology but it's also the answer.

    less glib (none / 0) (#68)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:35:58 PM EST
      The defense you are attempting to fabricate appears to be based on a mistaken interpretation of this language:

    422. Defenses and exceptions

    (a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
        It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
    that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is          
    charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the
    intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the
    disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is          
    the basis for the prosecution.

      Other people having illegally disclosed  prior to you would not be a defense for your illegal disclosure because that is not a public acknowledgment or revelation  by the United States.  . Only the authorized official acts of officials are on behalf of the United States.


    More than one (none / 0) (#54)
    by sphealey on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    > Leakers of what? If the consideration was
    > that she was covert, then after one leaker,
    > that was no longer true. And that one leaker
    > was Armitage.

    As a general rule that is not correct where classified information is concerned.  And it is specifically not true for nuclear-related classified information which falls under special provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (of 1954 as amended IIRC).  

    Your theory implies that all laws involving classified information can be rendered null by loading the information in a shotgun and blasting it in the faces of a group of reporters - which is not the case.

    But I am sure you know that.  Who exactly do you work for PPJ?  Just curious.



    sphealy (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    No, the issue was that a covert agent had been outed. There is a very specific law governing that.

    Fitzgerald has never said she was covert, and since Armitage admitted being the leaker, the law must not have been violatd, and Libby also must not have been violated.


    Nice Theory (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    Although your powers of deduction have left much to be desired in the past.

    Poker odds on your deduction:

    1 to 100


    squeaky (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    Actually those are facts, not theories.

    And it would be 1 in 100, or 99 to 1.

    My advice is that you shouldn't assoicate with kdog. ;-)


    wrongwing echo ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Sailor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    even  snoozemax admits:
    Fitzgerald did insist that Mrs. Wilson's "association with the CIA was classified," which would make leaking her occupation a crime.
    of course it was while tryiung to insist that Fitz backed off a claim. O course fits never did back off, he just issued charges that he knew he could get a conviction for.

    Special Counsel Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his Grand Jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003--"when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown"


    Any hundreds of other links.

    It's amazing that some deniers just plain refuse to see the truth that the CIA & DoJ investigated, found she was covert, and recommended a special counsel find out who done it.


    To answer your question (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    I am a Retired Old F*rt (ROF) living off the fat of the land in my Palatial Retirement Compound, catfish pond and BBQ stand, fresh vegetables every Wednesday..

    From time to time I do some consulting for firms within the industry I spent years and years in.

    Rates are available upon request.


    LOL!!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by wlgriffi on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    "Given that, isn't the onus now on the White House to follow through on its promise to fire at least Rove (of course, Cheney can't be fired), and to revoke the security clearance of BOTH Cheney and Rove for violating the oath both of them took not to reveal classified information?"

    Bush will respond as Cheney already has - because of the ongoing legal proceedings to follow the conviction it would be improper to comment.

    Like Bush's war on terrorism to go on forever so will this pusuit of the white houses machinations.


    Or (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    The Chimp will smugly say 'prove it'.

    question (none / 0) (#24)
    by carlw on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:38:20 PM EST
    I'm a bit confused by this: "Fitzgerald was very clear that he does not expect to bring additional charges in the case."

    If Fitz doesn't anticipate bringing any more charges in the case, what are the potential next steps in terms of getting at Cheney? As great as today was, is this it (besides the civil case)? If there is a cloud over the White House, how does this clear it up?

    What civil case? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    I hope Wilson sues. I would love to see him under oath.

    Suit happy! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:04:21 PM EST
    I hope Wilson sues. I would love to see him under oath.

    Me too, because his straightforward presentation contrasts so strongly with the weasels who ruined his wife's career.  I'm sure Joe can't wait, and I'm sure he can't wait to get Dick Cheney under oath.

    Remember, this was the guy who dared Saddam to hang him, and I don't think he's afraid of Cheney or Bush.

    I guess you, me and Joe are all on the same page here.  How often does that happen?


    RePack, no not often. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    Wilson's courage isn't in question.

    And I don't know if you understand this, but if the suit proceeds, there will be a several differences in form.

    1. The questioning will be done by someone who is hostile and makes a living asking no wiggle room questions.

    2. The questioning, during the trial, and during the depotism stage will be done under oath.

    3. The questioner will have a complete, in sequence narrative of what was said, etc.

    Of course both sides will have this.

    Should make for some intersting listening.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    Joe Wilson's command of the facts, and his straightforward presentation of same will serve him well in a "depotism" [sic].  Having nothing to hide doesn't hurt either.

    Like you, I can't wait for Wilson, Cheney, Rove et al to get under oath with penalty of perjury and tell their stories.

    We agree on all points here.


    Civil case filed six months ago (none / 0) (#45)
    by sphealey on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:26:52 AM EST
    Not sure where you have been PPJ, but the Wilsons filed their civil suit six months ago.



    Filing and pursuing (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:29:17 AM EST
    are two different things.

    The first was done. I doubt the latter will happen.

    But I hope it does.


    I'll take my chances. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM EST
    Using conviction as basis for deeper investigation (none / 0) (#62)
    by fourarrows on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:20:51 PM EST
       Many of the blogs and talkshows refer to possibilities that Dick Cheney did other illegal acts to stifle criticism of Iraq war plans. Yet no one has dared to mention the prima facia case made about his involvement in the death of Senator Paul Wellstone or his orchestration of six war games on 9/11. As the lead author of American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone, and as the author of a chapter on the war games in Elsevier's text, The Hidden History of 9/11, and as a university professor, I am frustrated that the old "conspiracy theory" saw can be used to dismiss these probabilities in light of the Libby conviction. Perhaps, if we truly want accountability for the crimes of this administration, a call for a senate investigation into the death of the most vocal opponent of the Iraq war resolution, and the only senator running for office at the time, Paul Wellstone, should NOW be called forth by blogs such as this.

    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by peacrevol on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    old Dickie made it pretty clear when he started shooting people in the face. You dont f#%& with Dick. (pun intended?)

    Flashback (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    For a nice llustrated recap of the Niger story, Juan Cole has reposted his-story of the event.

    Sully??? (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president's office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about - what it has always been about - is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war.

    via digby

    Vermont (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    Has voted to impeach Cheney and Bush. Go Putney!

    squeaky... (none / 0) (#69)
    by dutchfox on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:33:13 PM EST
    I live in Burlington, VT and made a comment on the above Open Thread about the Town Meeting Day resolutions.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    I just saw that. I always loved Vermont. Old ex in Putney, warms my heart.