Posted on 10/24/2005 9:05:41 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Monday, Oct. 24, 2005 10:24 p.m. EDT Times: Cheney First Disclosed CIA Official's Name
The New York Times reported late Monday that Vice President Cheney has been directly linked to the so-called "Plamegate" scandal involving the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer.
The paper reported that Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby "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."
The paper sourced their story to "lawyers involved in the case."
The Times said that notes taken by Libby differ from his own testimony before the grand jury as to when he first learned of Plame's identity.
"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."
Cheney apparently discovered details of Plame's CIA work after he questioned then CIA Director George J. Tenet about her husband, Ambassador Wilson.
But even if Libby or Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity as a CIA officer they may not have committed a crime.
"Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status," the Times said.
Let's see VP in presence of Cleared Chief of Staff mentions Valery Stains name in relation to Husband. Now foul here.
Chief of staff blabs to UNCLEARED pressies ----FOUL!!!! Ref's Flags litter the field.
The Democrat primaries should have been a frightening wakeup call for those who do not want to see this President and this country trashed from pillar to post by the radical left. The Democrat primaries of 2004 should have told everyone they're dead-dog serious about this whether it's true or not.
No.
They're out for blood --- GOP blood and "some" on our side are aiding and abetting. Big time.
The libs should just file this under "Be careful what you wish for". They would LOVE to take Cheney down, but have no idea of consequences that might have for their future plans: "Vice President Rice" - sounds like 'Goodbye Hillary' to me...
Miller did not say that Libby told her. Miller lying would be a crime.
Bud didn't Judith Miller say she had clearance for something?
And what kind of clearance did Wilson have that would have allowed him to go on a mission to a foreign country to ascertain if a third power was attempting to buy nuclear material?
CIA is full of nut jobs. Hasn't it been the left that has been telling us that our lack of HUMINT is what is causing our intel failures?
And lookie who they send ....
"Be careful what you wish for" is exactly right.
Do these fools think that whoever is indicted in this White House is not going to fight back?
They'll depose EVERYBODY; and anybody who lies will be in big trouble.
Might be a crime, but Libby telling anyone about Plame is not in evidence.
Well, that IS a question, isn't it?
I can hardly wait.
Bring it on, you dopes.
Maybe she lied to the Grand Jury!
The title suggests that Cheney disclosed her name, but is that the case, or did he merely disclose that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?
There is a significant difference and the actual facts (if there are any) seems unclear.
Yeah,... RUMINT (Rumor Intelligence)
Cheney had every right to discuss the facts with Libby. I assume the VP can discuss anything with his closest ades in the WH. It only becomes a crime (maybe) when somebody reveals it to an outsider without a security clearance.
Bommer said: "What is this repeated crap of "may not have committed a crime?" THERE WAS NO CRIME! She was not covert or an agent as far as I can tell!"
If there was no crime, why was the information leaked? Why couldn't everyone involved have disclosed openly, with attribution, that Plame sent her husband Joseph Wilson to Niger, and that therefore his testimony was dubious?
I can't believe that Fitzgerald is so thick that he spent two years investigating the Plame incident when there was no crime. If that is true, he will look like one of the biggest screw-ups of all time. This would be great, but it doesn't seem likely to me.
If there is a crime let there be a perjury trial of Libby, at trial there will be witnesses for the prosecution and witnesses for the Defense. In a Libby trial who would Fitz call as a witness for his side Miller? Wilson? Cheney? Who would Libby have as a witness?
One thing prosecutors hate more than not finding wrongdoing is prosecuting and losing.
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.