Report: Fitzgerald Focusing On Direct Cheney Involvement
By on Oct 17th, 2005 at 6:47 am
Report: Fitzgerald Focusing On Direct Cheney Involvement
From Bloomberg News:
A special counsel is focusing on whether Vice President Dick Cheney played a role in leaking a covert CIA agent’s name, according to people familiar with the probe that already threatens top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby…Fitzgerald has questioned Cheney’s communications adviser Catherine Martin and former spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise and ex-White House aide Jim Wilkinson about the vice president’s knowledge of the anti-Wilson campaign and his dealings on it with Libby, his chief of staff, the people said.
The story tends to corroborate, at least as it pertains to Cheney, what George Stephanopoulos said a couple of weeks ago.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
From DKos:
In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.
If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/10/17/13429/498/2/post#here
October 17th, 2005 at 6:51 amTo be hoist by one’s own petard:
Literally, this idiom means, “to be destroyed by one’s own bomb.†(A petard was used to break down a door or wall.) When one is caught by something made and intended to catch another, he is “hoist by his own petardâ€.
The phrase originates from Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
There’s letters sealed, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work,
For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar, an’t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon.
(Act III, Scene 4)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word petard came into substantive use in 1598, so it’s fair to speculate that viewers of Hamlet (first performed c. 1600-01) may have been aware of the word’s etymological root in the French pétard, from the verb péter, to fart. This would have given the phrase an additional, probably intentional, double meaning (i.e., being flung into the air by one’s own flatulence), alluding to the humor and ridicule associated with being caught in a web of one’s own machinations.
Schweet!
October 17th, 2005 at 6:54 amLet’s hope Cheney goes down – and pulls dububble boy with him
Meanwhile, the newest reason for having gone into Iraq per Condi Rice – this one is closer yet to ‘truth’ if I can tell fact from fiction at this point
” But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.
Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it’s difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807/
October 17th, 2005 at 7:09 amGood Morning America How Are YOu? I’m getting better saids America ..when Justice is done and the Crimnals are charged with Treason Against me and my Citizens.
October 17th, 2005 at 7:11 ambiobit #3,
Rice’s explanation on MTP yesterday may have been closer to “a” truth but it’s not any closer to “the” truth. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not a terrorist threat to the U.S., they were not an imminent threat to the U.S or their neighbors and they certainly weren’t involved in 9/11. Once again she’s conflated Saddam’s Iraq with Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and it’s simply bullshit. Now if she wanted to claim that leaving Saddam Hussein in power threatened the U.S strategically or geopolitically, I might be buying.
It’s a lie, they know it’s a lie but they can only stick to that rationale because it’s all they have left. It’s ugly and desperate, but it’s just more evidence for their trials at the Hague.
October 17th, 2005 at 8:46 amThe truth ALWAYS comes out.
October 17th, 2005 at 8:51 amAN INDICTMENT A DAY PUTS THE REPUGS AWAY!
Leavenworth here we come!
October 17th, 2005 at 9:32 am“The truth always comes out” maybe, but will we see it in our lifetime?
October 17th, 2005 at 9:33 amWhy is it that whenever Condasleezy says “no one could have imagined” it’s usually the direct opposite. Meaning MOST folks have already done so, and it’s passed into common thought.
Either she’s a total dumbass, or she thinks the American people are. Either way, it’s rather telling.
October 17th, 2005 at 9:55 amGood Morning Jennty,
Rice believes we are the dumb one’s, her loyalty to Bush like the rest of his regime is steadfast. She’s just another Bush whore, sold out for power and wealth. She is well educated and much smarter than Bush, but just another lier to maintain their control……Blessings
October 17th, 2005 at 10:12 amOoooh, Dr Death under the ’scope….nasty pleasures coming over the horizon. It’s enough to make you consider a large-screen TV purchase, eh?
October 17th, 2005 at 10:38 amAs much as I’d like to see this war criminal indicted for any crime he has commited. I’m thinking he will be named as an unindicted co-conspiritor. I’d like to see junior get the same. Run their asses out of Dodge.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:41 amAnd as far as the shoe shopper goes.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:44 amThey should have tied her to the front of the boat that is named after her.
I would urge CAP to prepare a substantive rebuttal to the likely White House argument that any indictment is just simply the criminalization of policy.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:55 amOh, Dear God, please. We Progressives have had our country hijacked, please get rid of these criminals.
How many crimes would have been uncovered has the DEMS actually had the ability to hold hearings? And actually had a backbone?
October 17th, 2005 at 11:16 amWhy don’t we all write to our representatives and tell them to impeach the president? I have already written to both senators of my state and if enough people overwhelm them with similar letters, then they will have to listen.
Instead of only commenting here, let’s get everyone we can to write to our elected officials to move forward with impeachment.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:18 amRemove Bush,
October 17th, 2005 at 11:24 amI wrote to our rep., he wrote back, believe this, that he thought it wouldn’t be in the country’s best interest to go through another impeachment.
#17 Who cares what he thinks! It’s what the American people think, and if enough write in then they have to act. Otherwise, they will stand a chance of loosing the election when it comes up.
Apply pressure and things will happen, just look at the current administration for evidence.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:38 amRemoveBush, I agree but, we need a better way to get to these representatives. My old computer and lack of puter savy takes me forever to get the job done. Manage my state one’s fine but takes long hours to get the other senators messages out. Looking up email addresses and doing this one at a time is not getting it done fast enough. Can any one suggest a faster way…Blessings
October 17th, 2005 at 11:47 amI would urge CAP to prepare a substantive rebuttal to the likely White House argument that any indictment is just simply the criminalization of policy.
Dollars to donuts it’s already done.
October 17th, 2005 at 12:37 pmWhats going on? This thread had 511 comments on it a minute ago.
??????????????
October 17th, 2005 at 1:08 pmIn an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.
If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.
Looks like Bush and Cheney will be tied up in court for years.
October 17th, 2005 at 1:11 pmMeanwhile, the newest reason for having gone into Iraq per Condi Rice – this one is closer yet to ‘truth’ if I can tell fact from fiction at this point
†But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.
Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it’s difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.â€
Why would our response to 9/11 be done just because we smashed AlQeada and Afghanistan? What about all those Saudis and Pakistanis that are supporting Osama? What about Pakistans Nuclear (WMDs) black market? I can imagine a new middle east that has Saddam being paid by America to attack Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and clean it of its religious radicals while we bomb the shit out of both of them and even let Halliburton go in and rebuild all the oil wells that get destroyed so we can keep the oil coming… It might have been ‘harsh’ but so was 9/11 …
October 17th, 2005 at 1:21 pmLetters of impeachment must be filed with the House of Representatives.
The House is a Repuke House.
Letters of impeachment sent there are thrown in the trash can.
No impeachment can be accomplished until we have a democratic majority in the House and dems sitting on the committees.
Period.
October 17th, 2005 at 1:37 pmyou may want to change the link for the Bloomberg story on Cheney to this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aT0EuwQJZyPo&refer=us
looks like have made two corrections to the story. it is also significant perhaps for Thin Progress profiles that the news article now deletes reference to former White House aide Jim Wilkinson, so he may not have been questioned. apparently communications adviser Catherine Martin was investigated.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:14 pmFair and Balanced – Fox News this morning, one of the only news website’s NOT showing a headline about the Fitzgerald investigation. Apparently they ‘will not speak about an ongoing investigation’ either.
Maybe they just haven’t found a way to ’spin’ it in a positive way for this administration.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:26 am