BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
Is Cheney Next?
February 22, 2007 12:03 PM
Could a guilty verdict for a former aide bring further criminal scrutiny of Vice President Dick Cheney?
"Yes," said Sol Weisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel to former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.
As a federal jury deliberates the fate of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, several watchers agree. If the jury decides Libby knew he was lying to investigators, it could spur investigators to explore further whether Cheney was involved in conspiring to obstruct justice, they believe.
Libby's lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The office of the vice president declined to discuss the matter.
At issue is a conversation between the two men in the fall of 2003, soon after the federal probe began to identify who leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
Libby recalled the conversation from the stand, "I told the vice -- you know, there was -- the president said anybody who knows anything should come forward or something like that...I went to the vice president and said, 'You know, I was not the person who talked to Novak,'" according to the "National Journal," whose reporter Murray Waas attended the trial and was the first to note the possible trouble a guilty verdict could cause for the vice president.
"[H]e [said] something like, 'I know that,'" Libby continued. "And I said, you know, 'I learned this from Tim Russert.' And he sort of tilted his head to the side a little bit, and then I may have in that conversation said, 'I talked to other -- I talked to people about it on the weekend.'"
"What did you understand from his gesture or reaction in tilting his head?" Fitzgerald asked Libby, according to Waas' account.
"That the Tim Russert part caught his attention," Libby replied. "You know, that he, he reacted as if he didn't know about the Tim Russert thing, or he was rehearing it or reconsidering it or something like that...New, new sort of information. Not something he had been thinking about."
"And did he at any time tell you, 'Well, you didn't learn it from Tim Russert, you learned it from me?'" asked Fitzgerald. "'Back in June you and I talked about the wife working at the CIA?'"
"No," Libby responded, according to Waas.
That brief conversation could be trouble for Cheney, reports Waas, because at the time of the conversation, Cheney "already had reason to know that Libby's account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony," as well as evidence and testimony from the Libby trial.
Of course, an extended Cheney probe may not garner much. "I don't know how much more there would be for Fitzgerald to do," Weisenberg told ABC News. Libby and Cheney were the only parties to the conversation, he noted, so further cooperation from Libby would be the only way to discern its true meaning.
First, Fitzgerald would need to win a guilty verdict for Libby and push for the harshest sentence possible, said Washington, D.C. lawyer Stanley Brand, who has built a practice around defending public officials. Then, he could grant Libby immunity from further prosecution and offer leniency in an effort to coax Libby to say more about the vice president's role, if any, in obstructing his leak investigation.
Even then, it would take a lot more evidence than that one conversation to build a case against the vice president, Brand told ABC News. "A wink and a nod can't be obstruction," he said. "There has to be overt acts and intent."
Reached by phone Thursday, Fitzergald spokesman Randall Sanborn declined comment on the matter.
February 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (53)
While this story of Dick Cheney's involvement makes for a great conspiracy story in the media, bottom line is whether or not the VP is the source of this information and plotted to take down political opponents such as Amb. Wilson and his wife nothing will ever be brought against him in way of charges. I believe from what we have heard so far Cheney is that source, because this is the way the VP has operated since day one in office.
Posted by: Rick | Feb 22, 2007 1:00:01 PM
Nothing will happen to the VP. GW will see to that. Scooter will not be found guilty (even though I beleive he is), and just like everything else, it will soon be forgotten. What a cover-up.
Posted by: Don | Feb 22, 2007 1:35:09 PM
The Bush-Chaney gang have found it a real nagging problem to comply with that silly Constitution that "other people" are constrained, and also protected, by. I don't know if they can come up with some sort of Executive Order to circumvent the law on this one however. The root of this case is another example of how "the administration" deals with anyone who dares to not stay "in step" with the White House's policies and desires. If you oppose Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield or Halaburton, you are going to get burned.
Posted by: grumpy grandpa | Feb 22, 2007 1:38:20 PM
It is tragic that the real crime, and a life-and-death crime at that, will go un-prosicuted and unpunished.
I wonder how many people died as a result of our own Vice President's decision to blow the cover of Brewster Jennings, our CIA's front-company in Iraq.
I don't have to wonder how many have been killed as a result of the damage that was done to our ability to collect reliable data on the presence or absence of WMD in Iraq.
If Libby lied, then he should be punished (and not pardoned by Bush). But how sad it is that those who committed the far more serious crimes in this case will live to smirk about it.
Posted by: marcoribrien | Feb 22, 2007 1:50:45 PM
Cheney beats most raps these days but what about the sealed document that I thought might be ROVE...could it be cheney we hope?
Actually the profiteering by the cheney brigade in the midst of the killing fields would be a far more appropriate take down of this fine man notwithstanding the pacemaker fizzing out on him...
Posted by: daddy | Feb 22, 2007 2:09:34 PM
Good point, Rick. Then again, whether anything criminal would come from it or not, it certainly would give ammunition to Cheney's detractors to pursue impeachment against him. What a delicious irony that would be! The House in 98 pursued impeachment against Clinton even though they knew that the Senate would never convict him. As the saying goes, you can't remove a President from office that the public doesn't want you to remove. Can't say that Cheney has the kind of support though from anyone other than right-wingers. So the Dems might be all over that like a starving dog on fresh meat.
Ahhhhhhhh karma...what goes around, comes around.....
Posted by: Ryan | Feb 22, 2007 2:10:11 PM
Nice left wing hit piece. Not one mention of Richard Armitage, the guy who actually leaked Plames name. She wasn't a covert agent, by the way. Leaking her name wasn't actually a crime. No body has been charged with leaking her name, and wont be. Why dont you report that???????
Posted by: jason | Feb 22, 2007 2:11:16 PM
Well, wouldn't "Cheney in Jail" be a great way to end the worst presidency in the history of this great country. Too bad we can't earn back the world's respect.
Posted by: Stevan | Feb 22, 2007 2:19:32 PM
Once the VP steps down, impeachment of Mr. Bush should be be the next logical step. Who's the next president? Pelosi.
Posted by: DEK | Feb 22, 2007 2:30:59 PM
And this info is coming from Fitzgerald's office, right?
Otherwise it's just speculation.
And jason | Feb 22, 2007 2:11:16 PM
you should (re)read the IIPA
Posted by: Kanye | Feb 22, 2007 3:36:45 PM
CHENEY'S DIRECRT INVOLVEMENT THE LEAKING OF A CIA OPERATIVE'S NAME. With Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald going after Cheney, we may now find out how this all got started. Remember it was the Vice President, who first told his former chief of staff her name, I. Lewis Libby where she worked.
Posted by: bradentonfloridareader | Feb 22, 2007 5:18:56 PM
Jason,
let's be clear.
1. Armitage, Scooter, Rove and Fleischer all testified to leaking her name.
2. How do you know that she wasn't covert? Wouldn't the CIA referring the matter to DOJ in the first place be an indication.
3. Did you not watch Fitzgerald's original press conference, no one has been charged with leaking because of obstruction of justice and perjury by Mr. Libby.
Posted by: Matt | Feb 22, 2007 5:19:08 PM
He can't be prosecuted for the leak, only for obstruction.
The Pres and VP are legally allowed to declassify, even on the fly, as I understand it.
Of course it's vile to DO so, in this way for these reasons, but he's allowed to do it.
Posted by: DavidBodhi | Feb 22, 2007 5:30:48 PM
Ryan- She was covert. Her CIA classmates in the agency have already stood up for her status. Moreover, the CIA itself NEVER confirms or denies the status of any agent which gives rise to your GOP talking point. Get it? Oh well, you probably don't.
Posted by: Hal | Feb 22, 2007 7:11:55 PM
Pelosi would make a better Pres than the one who occupies the Oval Office currently. BTW, other than cutting taxes for the rich, what has he done of any substance for Americans?
Posted by: Hal | Feb 22, 2007 7:14:29 PM
My prediction is that the threat of criminal indictments by the Department of Justice will be enough to cause Cheney to resign. Plus, Bush isn't getting along with his Vice President-- no one is at this moment, especially since Rumsfeld left-- so Cheney is on the chopping block and will likely be asked to leave, as so many others have left the Bush administration. Plus Cheney is being hounded by the DOJ, press, Congress, and both political parties, and his mental state is being heavily scrutinized. Rumors are flying that he's cracking up. He has a weak heart. It would be best for him to resign right now, before the indictments come, the articles of impeachment are filed, and before the civil lawsuits start piling up for his many violations of civil law.
Posted by: Cynthia | Feb 22, 2007 8:03:42 PM
I'm a fan of Justin Rood, but I find it weird that an ABC reporter would have to write "according to Waas" when quoting Libby's GJ testimony. The GJ testimony is public -- there's no need to have to trust Waas, or attribute it to him.
Unless, that is, the entire story is a summary of Waas. Which it is. Why not just provide the link and leave it at that?
Posted by: Jim E. | Feb 22, 2007 8:58:33 PM
I think that even if Libby is found guilty, in the end, George W Bush will pardon him. After all George W doesn't want a black eye over his presidency! Oh what's that you say about Mass Wepons?
Posted by: Sherry | Feb 23, 2007 12:26:36 AM
It would be an absolute disgrace for Bush to pardon Libby if he were convicted. The GOP wanted to impeach a president for lying about extramarital affairs but Bush will pardon someone who lied about something that isn't trivial. Thats disgusting.
Posted by: Rick | Feb 23, 2007 9:30:57 AM
Dear Justin:
It's W-I-S-E-N-B-E-R-G. There is no E-I in Mr. Wisenberg's name.
Adrienne Wisenberg
Posted by: Adrienne Wisenberg | Feb 23, 2007 11:54:10 AM
There never was an "underlying crime" in the Fitzgerald investigation. Valerie Plame had not been an undercover agent for years and her protection under the undercover agent identity protection act had lapsed several years before this scandal broke. The question is why would Fitzgerald even investigate a non-crime, especially when he knew from the start of the investigation that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak? What needed to be investigated?
If Libby lied to a grand jury (and it appears that he did), throw the book at him but how can anyone convict anyone of "obstruction of justice" when there was no criminal commiting a crime to bring to justice?
If anyone should be brought to trial it should be Amb. Wilson for making false accusations -- he surely must be aware that his wife's identity was not protected by law!
Lee
Posted by: lee nason | Feb 23, 2007 12:05:05 PM
FYI to everyone:
Special Counsel Fitzgerald's ONGOING investigation has not determined that the public exposure of Plame's name violated any criminal statutes.
Posted by: Rick | Feb 23, 2007 1:39:18 PM
To all the GOPers trying to spread innaccurate talking points such as "Valerie Plame was not covert" I say this... that is desperation.
Of course, many hardcore GOP will spread this lie in order to divert attention away from Rove, and Cheney, who were behind the scheme to get revenge on Joe Wilson for telling the truth about the phony administration story about Nigeria.
Obviously, some in this forum believe that Dick Cheney is above the law. That may appear to be true, but I can assure you that he will be brought to justice when the truth is finally exposed. Cheney is already one of the least popular figures in American history with a favorable rating of 17%.
Posted by: apep | Feb 23, 2007 1:47:00 PM
Treason during a time of War should be grounds for impeachment.
Nice.
Valerie was in charge of contacting several people on the Non-Official Contact list; the Holy Grail of the CIA.
Posted by: norm | Feb 23, 2007 1:53:24 PM
jim e. --
allow me to offer a few
perhaps simple asides:
(1) grand jury testimony is not
public. mr. rood quotes mr. waas
first because it was his cogent and
creative analysis, and second because
the only easy way to access the
portions of thegrand jury testimony
fitzgerald had read into the record
at the trial, is to quote someone.
in general, unless used in the
subsequent trial, grand jury testi-
mony is not public. note that fitz
may still use some part of others'
testimony against cheney at some
point.
(2) more here.
Posted by: nolo | Feb 23, 2007 11:11:05 PM
It is amazing how the left keeps going after Cheney as a target with a vengance.
There are much bigger fish out there . It is just so that Cheney with his haliburton connections is so obvious and apparent.
Posted by: trat for | Feb 24, 2007 4:26:23 AM
nolo,
Fitzgerald played Scooter Libby's taped GJ testimony in open court for over three days in the trial. The transcript -- as well as audio -- has been made available to the public. It's on most websites, and the transcript is available right now on the Department of Justice Website (look at Feb 7):
I listened to the audio from the WashPost website last week.
Posted by: Jim E. | Feb 24, 2007 11:01:09 AM
Oddly enough I view taking Cheney down as an olive branch to Bush/GOP. If Bush goes first, we get Cheney in White House. If Cheney goes down before Bush, Bush/GOP gets to appoint a new VP. Then when Bush gets impeached, the GOP still holds the White House, leaving Pelosi in the wings. I doubt any of this will happen with our spineless Congress but if the wheels of impeachment start turning, Cheney going first is the only GOP option.
Posted by: Greg Forest | Feb 26, 2007 9:40:27 AM
Keep hope alive. We must have our Fiztmas. Snicker, Snort, Snort
Posted by: lb | Feb 26, 2007 6:02:32 PM
Was leaking the name of covert CIA Agent Valarie Wilson Plaim a crime? Some would argue that it wasn't since Richard Armitage wasn't yet charged with the crime. But with all honesty, if this wasn't a crime, then why would the Whitehouse cover this up? Why didn't Richard Armitage come forward and admit this to Patric Fitzgerald before he launch this investigation. Why didn't Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush come forward and atleast say "Hey, I authorised the leak,becuase I wanted America to know the truth." He didn't. He instead admitted how serious this charge is and said "anyone who commited this crime would be fired."
It's funny that the Whitehouse would hope that Karl Rove or Scooter Libby would not get indicted. When Libby was indicted, it came as a shock to the Whitehouse. The onion is peeling.
Bush pardoned Scooter Libby when Libby admitted that Bush authorized the leak. Bush finnaly admitting (after 3 years of cover-up) that he did authorise the leaking of Valrie Wilson Plame, but said nothing about this until Libby testified under oath following his indictment.
Posted by: Christopher Hamner | Feb 27, 2007 2:39:44 PM
Another piece by the grenade tossing media that slants the whole story. Why am I not shocked? Let's retract a bit. Plame was never covert, that's a given and it's been stated many times before. She's the one who got Wilson the trip to Niger where he sat in his room and didn't even look at anything. And yes there is evidence to support the claim. BTW apep, it was Niger not Nigeria(see, libs can't get their story straight.) It's been known in Beltway circles she worked for the CIA anyway, hell even Wilson flaunted it calling her "my CIA wife." Even the Washington Post admitted it wasn't a big deal.
This trial isn't even about who supposedly leaked anything, it's about a perjury case(see, libs can't get that correct either.)
Posted by: Thomas | Feb 28, 2007 1:51:31 AM
Let me get this straight. The actual leaker was Armitage but he has not been charged because disclosing Plames identity was not criminal because she hadn't been covert for over 5 years. Fitzgerald knew this early on but kept the investigation going.
Looks like BS to me. If found guilty, Libby should recieve the same sentence Clinton did for lying to a grand jury, or does it depend on what "is" is?
Posted by: stu smalley | Feb 28, 2007 12:30:12 PM
I pray that the Democrats writing here are an aberration, and not statistically relevant. Otherwise, half of our country is comprised of rabid dogs, who don't deserve a government formed with such care and reason.
Posted by: Erik | Feb 28, 2007 10:11:10 PM
Thomas wrote: "Plame was never covert, that's a given and it's been stated many times before."
To say she was "never" covert is simply not true. Plame used to be a covert operative in the 1980s and 1990s.
The question is whether she was covert in the five years prior to July 2003. (Plame presumably stopped being "covert" in the late 1990s and was supposedly in the process of moving to non-official cover when she was named by Novak.) It's a technical question due to the specific requirements of law, a question that is irrelevant to Scooter's trial for perjury. But Thomas is just factually wrong to claim that Plame was "never" covert.
Posted by: Jim E. | Mar 1, 2007 11:48:24 AM
Cheney will leave office due to health reasons. Condi Rice will be named VP, then go back to speaking and writing. As Bush leaves in 09, he will pardon Libby and Cheney, even if charges are never concluded. In the unlikely event Bush would be forced to resign at any point, Rice would pardon him.
Posted by: Franklin | Mar 1, 2007 10:16:25 PM
Who cares? President Clinton already showed us that it isn't a crime to lie under oath.
Posted by: Adam | Mar 5, 2007 8:19:05 PM
This is an ABSOLUTE waste of money, to feed the ego of a LIAR like Wilson, and the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, who knew in the first 2 weeks of the investigation that the leak was from Armitage!!! Fitzgerald then forbid him to say anything, because he was just positive that the Evil Rove, & Cheney were behind the "leaking" of a NON secret agent , who soon after was more than happy to put her, and her idiotic husband on the cover of Vanity Fair! Cheney is a true Patriot, & public servant, who, by the way, was'nt IMPEACHED, like some others who we have all seen before! In short, Cheney will be charged when hell freezes over!!!
Posted by: Matt Sumrell | Mar 6, 2007 3:59:17 AM
Man, I just read all these comments and all I can think is "Who cares?" Don't you people have anything better to do than spout conspiracy theories. I'm sorry I wasted my time reading all this material.
Posted by: Kelly | Mar 6, 2007 5:37:24 AM
What is this trial costing us? Lets spend our money on better things. If there is no crime why try and create one.I am beginning to lose faith in the NEWS' ability to recognize the real threat to our country. It does not lie with anything concerned with this story.
Posted by: Ken | Mar 6, 2007 11:41:18 AM
Well lets see... does the Nixon scandal ring anyone's bell.. there will be a lot mroe to come from this crazy madness
Posted by: ashlyn | Mar 6, 2007 12:20:42 PM
reading boards like this makes me sad, most just using GOP or Democratic talking points, facts are twisted, trivial information clouds rational thought, i fear for the future of America, our two party system has painted everything black and white, we are bombarded by bias media that claims to be "fair and unbias" from both sides, we can't seem to think outside the box, hopefully the next empire can.
Posted by: tomas | Mar 6, 2007 12:53:43 PM
What a wimpy justice system; Sandy Burgler gets probation for stealing (and destroying) classified national documents; Bill Clinton gets a pass for lying to a grand jury; Hillary Clinton gets a "pass" for saying she can't recall (57 times) during the White water Grand Jury; but Scooter Libby is found guilty of lying???? Truly political. The Justice Department should be renamed to the "Injustice Department".
Posted by: Ray Kohn | Mar 6, 2007 1:04:38 PM
Does anyone ever say they work for the CIA?? No. They always say they work for the State Department. I know - I am married to a retiree. Bush/Cheney knew exactly what they were doing . . . this isn't the only time this adminstration has done something like this. Republicans take care of themselves first.
Posted by: bpb | Mar 6, 2007 1:05:44 PM
YES . CHENEY IN JAIL SOON AND HUMANITY CRIMES OF COURSE . THEY ARE RESPONSABLE FOR THE MESS AND KILLINGS IN IRAQ
Posted by: JOSE LUIS SAMANIEGO | Mar 6, 2007 1:15:13 PM
There will only be justice when the leaker are on the hook for what they did. Have we forgotten that Rove was reported on the phone saying to conservative media folks to make Plame a target? Libby is just a part of the problem. Chaney and Rove a another, one lied to cover up for the others. The true leakers still walk free. When this first broke George Bush state he would fire those who leaked. Well George where is your action, Rove andChaney must go.
Posted by: james | Mar 6, 2007 1:15:57 PM
Those poor souls that still have to compare Clinton's lie---a lie (which I might add, 99% of all married men who cheat-- would lie for fear of what the wife would say--not national security) is not on the same page as those persons in the Bush administration telling lies that led a country to war.
Holy cow people… Can anyone seriously say sperm on a dress is the equivalent or worst, more important, than an unnecessary war where there are hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded? Good Grief Enough. Not to mention…the financial cost that is dragging this country into debt …and social instablity…wake up!
Posted by: Charley | Mar 6, 2007 1:23:24 PM
The next chapter of the story will be the indictment and conviction of Cheney and the subsequent impeachment of Bush. The momentum is growing, the end game is clear and there will be justice, eventually. I lust to learn what will be revealed by the investigations. We will be shocked at the lies and corruption that will be revealed. This will be the end of the so-called Republican Party, and I cannot wait!
Posted by: Richard Buchanan | Mar 6, 2007 1:25:37 PM
What I can't figure out is why, after very early on when Fitzgerald found out that Armitage was the leaker, and it wasn't a crime to do so; why did this investigation go on one more minute?? In the mean time Sandy Berger is off scott free after destroying puloined classified documents just to hide that information from the 911 commission. what a joke.
Posted by: Doug | Mar 6, 2007 1:38:23 PM
Is it me or did Bill Clinton not prove to the world that lying under oath is totally irrelevant. Or maybe it is me. I guess it depends on the meaning of what is, is!
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 6, 2007 2:04:14 PM
Have conservatives totally walked away from support for the United States of America?
Not the CSA but the USA- remember Gail Norton's comments about 'Confederate Values' being superior?
Conservatives have tried to turn themselves into a psuedo nation-look at Ann Coulter using third grade taunts toward a former United States Senator and Presidential Candidate before an adoring audience of approving conservatives- do they no longer consider themselves Americans?
Posted by: si | Mar 6, 2007 3:19:04 PM
The only crime committed here was that Libby lied to a grand jury. If there was any other crime, there would have been indictments for those as well. This thing dragged on for years and millions of dollars and this is all they could come up with. Talk about government waste. Give me the $500 toilet seat.
Posted by: wirepusher | Mar 6, 2007 4:12:38 PM
I can only see Libby was caught lying to the grand jury and nothing else. Zounds! shades of blue if that does not sound like someone else stating he did not have sex with that girl. Libby should not have lied to the grand jury but I have a hunch he will get a presidential pardon just as Nixon got. It was a waste of tax payer money anyway which is nothing unusual. I am wondering if Libby is taking the fall for Cheney, the vice-president. I do not know but it is a thought.
Posted by: Shirley Villasana | Mar 6, 2007 11:56:22 PM
dick cheney is as much an idiot as bush!he continues to believe in his lies about saddam and bin laden's al-qaida relationship.cheney and his influence over the puppet bush has created the turmoil the world is in today.only 1.5 years to go.hopefully before they leave the troops will be out of iraq,bush will have been impeached,and cheney in jail for the lies,deaths of american troops that he has caused with his narrow minded self centered attitude he has shown
Posted by: d | Apr 6, 2007 5:42:54 AM
Post a comment

Stray Guns in Baghdad
For McCain, Another Problem Fundraiser