Posted on 10/24/2005 6:28:34 PM PDT by nj26
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You're welcome. Sweet dreams...
I don't know either....why don't you offer me 2 million and I'll think about it. ;-)
And it turns out I would be right to call Pincus a columnist.
For so does the authoritative Wikipedia:
"Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
So we're still at three reporters. And a certain party is still a troll--regardless.
Like all trolls he's only in it for the attention. He tries to hijack every thread.
It's probably partly for political reasons, given the treads he picks. But mostly it's for the attention.
You and I both know what he is
Libby made me sick when I watched his testimony before Congress on the Rich pardon. Cheney should have got rid of him right after that. Libby is part of the band of jackals (lawyers) that circle around DC feeding off of the carrion of the lobbyists and politicians. It is all about power and money.
[quote]It looks like Dick Cheney's vice presidency will not survive the year; he shall go to jail to do hard labor for a minimum of five years and forever shall he be denied any medical care whatsoever.
The question: if Bush stands still, who will he select for the office of the vice-presidency? (Remember, the Senate confirmation requires 61 affirmative votes.) And if not, how would Speaker Hastert do as President with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress? Or will he, too, fall? And then, who becomes vice president?[/quote]
Someone is smoking the wacky weed and fanastizing about an alternative universe. First off, there is the small matter of what the Constitution has to say about a sitting Vice President being indicted for a crime. Cheney has to be impeached first. You think a Republican controlled House is going to draw up Articles of Impeachment against Cheney for this tempest-in-a-teapot affair?? As long as he remains Vice President he is untouchable by any prosecutor.
Next, what exactly is Bush accused of here?? He, too, has to be impeached first. Again, the President being impeached by a Republican-control Senate? Please. Even if the Dems somehow wrestle back Congress in '06 and decided to play "pay back time" for Clinton, remember it takes 66 Senators to vote for conviction. Again, ain't going to happen.
Finally, if Cheney were to step down voluntarily, it would be the Democrats worse nightmare come true. There is only one person that Bush would pick: Condi. She would instantly become the favorite for the '08 nomination. Hillary vs Condi, just like Dick Morris is predicting. BTW I think this is the plan all along. Look for Cheney to step down after the '06 mid-terms for health reasons and allow Bush to make the historic elevation of a black woman into the Vice Presidency. Oh, and one more thing, she would only need 51 votes to be confirmed, not 61. But then she would easily get +90 votes in the Senate. What Senator is going to vote against one of the most talented persons in the United States for the position, let alone a black woman of unquestionable qualifications?
relax, on this thread he's shooting blanks.
It's illegal for the Vice President of the United States to discuss a CIA operative with his own chief of staff?
I agree. This might be insurance by the NY Times, in case one of their own gets indicted instead of Rove or Libby, they can always claim that this is a coverup by Fitzgerald.
I saw a few minutes of Hannity & Colmes where Mary Ann Marsh (a democrat) said that, if Rove gets indicted, the Republicans can't claim partisanship because it will have been by a republican-appointed prosecutor. What she left unsaid was, if Rove doesn't get indicted, it will be because of a coverup by a republican-appointed prosecutor.
They're just trying to cover all their bases.
The expose' also said he was a protege' of Wolfowitz.....is Libby a neo-con? Or a paleo-con or just a con?
Isn't it illegal to leak information from a grand jury? Am I missing something?
I thought the liberal infilitrators were bad on the Miers stuff. Now they're foaming and spewing everywhere.
LOL. He may become a con if Fitzgerald indicts him.
Cheers,
Mike
Well, Clinton was impeached over perjury before a grand jury...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.