Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NBC: CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:05 AM
Original message
NBC: CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16661267/

CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity
Wilson, Plame claim that vice president is not shielded from civil lawsuit

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News

As jury selection began Tuesday in the criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, claim that the vice president cannot assert immunity from their complaint.

The Wilsons have sued Libby, Cheney, senior White House adviser Karl Rove, former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and nine unnamed government officials, accusing them of conspiring to destroy Plame's career at the CIA.

The Wilsons claim they were seriously injured by "retaliatory revelation" in revealing Plame's CIA employment. The court filing states the Wilsons' "fear for their safety and for the safety of their children." And, the filing says, "disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's covert identity makes her and her family a target for those persons and groups who bear hostility to the United States and/or its intelligence officers."

Attorneys for the Wilsons write that, "No case ever has accorded the Vice President absolute immunity." The court filing states that the fact that Cheney is a part of the executive branch "does not warrant according him absolute immunity."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
diddlysquat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hang around all day to be the first Recommendation on threads like these
and somebody beats me to it.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why would he be shielded from a civil lawsuit?
The PRESIDENT (Clinton) wasn't!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Yep.
What goes around comes around.

All the while they were witch hunting Clinton, I was thinking about what might happen to them down the road. The repukes were not thinking ahead, were they?

Look at the whiners in Congress, too. They thought they would be in charge forever. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Clinton was sued
for things that took place before he was president. Cheney is claiming that he is in the clear, because any legal behaviors that are part of his job can not be grounds for a civil suit. In that sense, the Wilson case is indeed different from the Clinton episode.

The Wilson's claim that Cheney et al participated in behaviors that are not, by definition, part of their duties as members of the executive office. That is the standard the judge will be deciding upon, in determining if the case goes forward, in part or entirely (in other words, does it have "merit"). The Clinton case allows for cases to go forward if they are deemed to have merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. K&R!!!
That makes five recs--Greatest Page! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. dick is but a mere veep.
'Tis better to be king. Right, george?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nezvanovich Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Still....
Tricky Dick is the real brains it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hey, welcome to DU, Nezvanovich!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Welcome to DU! He is indeed the puppetmaster.
Glad you're here! I would LOVE to see dick get justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxprog Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. After all these years...
...of justice getting Dick? :rofl:
(I know, I shouldn't laugh...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. Indeed! And Welcome to DU!
Good one! :rofl:

Glad you're here! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hot damn!
This is lovely news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. At this point cheney's only safe bet is to force bush to step down and become President himself.
And don't think he's not capable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. Tricky Dicky is going to have to be under Oath
I can't wait to see that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Sure Donating Member (334 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. I see that sentiment expressed often
and I don't get it. Why do you want to see Cheney under oath? Do you actually think he's going to tell the truth or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otherlander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Because
lying under oath is a fellony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. and Gonzalez will let us all know
what constitutes a felony. So no worries there, mate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. My chief suspect is Rumsfeld. Who had the most direct interest and
involvement in stopping honest professionals from truthfully reporting WMD evidence? Who was in the best position to do so? Who was running his own intelligence shop to circumvent the honest professionals at the CIA and the State Dept.? Whose payroll were Michael Ladeen and other rabid Neocon dirty operatives on? (--the ones who organized the Rome meeting in 2001, where many suspect the Niger forgeries were concocted, and where notorious Iran/Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar was present)? Who was paying millions to evidence cooker Chalabi? Who signed Judith Miller's "embed" contract, which placed her with the US troops hunting for the WMDs in Iraq that everybody knew weren't there?

And who was recently ousted, under cover of the elections, giving the appearance but not the reality of a change of policy in Iraq?

Donald Rumsfeld.

More questions: What else was Rumsfeld's intelligence shop up to? What accounts for the evident panic among top Bushites in the weeks of July 6-22--so many involved, so many risks taken, at least six reporters contacted in an effort to out Plame? What was the rush? (They'd known about Wilson's dissent for six months--he'd already gone public with it.) Why did they out Plame on 7/14/03 and then, a week later, on 7/22, ADDITIONALLY out the entire Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network, putting all of its covert agents at risk of getting killed, and disabling all projects? How did THAT punish Wilson? Why take that extra risk of felony and treason charges? Did something happen between 7/14 and 7/22 that prompted the additional outing?

One thing that happened in the middle of that week was the highly suspicious death of the Brits WMD expert, David Kelly, on 7/17, three days after Plame was outed, and the subsequent search of his office and computers. THEN B-J was outed (on 7/22). One theory is that he had stumbled upon--or helped to foil--a Bushite plot to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be "found" by the US troops, as part 2 of the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries plot. He had a USAF intel watcher--a woman and supposed friend--when he was in the US, who also visited him in England. Another "friend" of his was Judith Miller, to whom he wrote one of this last emails, on the day he died, expressing concern about the "many dark actors playing games." Miller--the NYT war propagandist who was meeting clandestinely with Libby about national security secrets--was also the one embedded with the US troops looking for the phantom WMDs. If a plot to plant WMDs in Iraq was discovered/foiled by Plame, by her counter-proliferation network, and/or by David Kelly, that sure would explain a lot of things.

Cheney. Was he an errand boy for Rumsfeld, as I suspect that Rove was? The Rovian revenge story--that Plame was outed to punish Wilson (for his op-ed in the NYT on 7/6/03)--is already wearing thin. Would Rove risk his ass by outing a covert CIA agent AND an entire CIA network, on his own--say, without some sort of written authorization or at least assurances? Not bloody likely. I think this is why he hasn't been indicted. He was an errand boy. (And there is a story in Wilson's book about a dustup between Rove and Libby, re Rove being left holding the bag.) And frankly I'm suspicious of the current Cheney story, that Cheney was so-o-o-o concerned about the war profiteering corporate news monopoly newsstream--that the Bushites had complete control of in 2003--that an op-ed by a dissenting ex-diplomat would prompt him to commit treason, leaving a mile wide trail. (One of the pieces of evidence in the Libby trial is a news clipping of Wilson's op-ed, supposedly marked up by Cheney back in July 2003, showing his "concern" about the article.) Cheney is likely to testify that Libby was so busy in 2003 that he couldn't remember conversations with reporters about outing a CIA agent and her entire network. But I don't know how he's going to testify that he was both "concerned" about Wilson's article (a cover story, in my opinion), and...didn't notice, didn't care, and, like Libby, was "too busy," to really focus on the outing of government agents. Their shtick was that it was a minor concern, a detail (part of the original plan to blame it on Rove).

My suspicion: That Cheney is covering for Rumsfeld, and for the larger plot to, in fact, destroy the CIA--purge it, convert it to a private oil corporation spying and vendetta organization--to get the CIA on record as saying no-nukes-in-Iraq (with the "crude"--easily detectable--Niger forgeries, and other ploys), then to discredit them and to cement Bush's (and Blair's) political position by the "find" of the planted nukes in Iraq.

IF this is what is going on, Plame (and Wilson) may not be free to say so. The plot--in this larger aspect--still destroyed Plame's career, and put her life and her family in danger, and ONE of the Bushites' motives was certainly to squash dissent (both inside and outside of the government). But I think there is far more here than Plame is able to disclose. As a covert agent, she is pledged to secrecy forevermore. This is probably preserving her life (--and is the thing that got David Kelly into deep trouble, that he was NOT pledged to secrecy, the way a CIA agent is, and was already whisteblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" pre-war WMD intel.) The tricky part for Plame--and also a measure of her courage--is fighting these bastards on their turf while gagged by her oath of secrecy.

People (rightwingers) have questioned why Fitzgerald is going after Libby on lying and obstruction, and no one has yet been indicted on the main crime--the outings of Plame and the B-J network. The obvious reason is that--as Fitzgerald said in his one and only press conference on the Libby indictment--Libby has "thrown dust in the umpire's eyes," so that Fitzgerald cannot finish the investigation, and nail the perps. It is also a prosecutorial tactic (and typical of Fitzgerald) to pressure and/or indict the lower rungs of responsibility, to get at the upper rungs, the real decision-makers. He obviously has Cheney in his sights, but could possibly be deferring to Congress on that one. (Interestingly, it was an Illinois state legislator, Karen Yarlborough, who recently discovered the section of Jefferson's Rulers that permits a state legislature to submit Articles of Impeachment to the US House--a privileged resolution that must be considered. Efforts are underway in about five states--the most recent, NM--to get such a resolution passed in state legislatures and submitted to the US House. Illinois was the first. BUT NOTE: The Jefferson's Rules provision ALSO says that a grand jury can do so!) (Additional note: Fitzgerald is a Chicago prosecutor.)

The other reason why Fitzgerald may not be able to get at the real perps--beyond the errand boys--is CIA secrecy (Plame's obligation to secrecy), so that he can't discover the yet more serious reasons that she and her entire network were outed. But I think that Rumsfeld's abrupt exit (with no change of policy in Iraq) points to those more serious reasons. It is a felony--and it is treason--to out ANY CIA agent for political reasons. That is a grave matter, surely. (And just look at one result--rogue elements in Russia spreading Polonium-210 all over Europe, in assassination schemes. THAT was Plame's JOB--to stop that sort of thing from happening!) But the deeper aspect of this affair--the motives for wanting to disable our entire network of protection against illicit movement and use of dangerous materials and weapons--remains obscure. It CANNOT have been a minor matter--a political toss-off in the heat of battle. Even traitorous criminal Bushites must have known what they were doing. And Rumsfeld is the one who likely knew the MOST about its potential impacts--both as to aiding their lies and deceit, and as to stripping us, and the entire world, of protection against WMD proliferation. Cheney should also have known this, and is no less culpable for being an operative in the plot, but perhaps not the ultimate mastermind. I simply don't believe that it was a political battle against dissent that went out of control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Interesting angles, much of it makes sense, Plame & WMD's
Plame's job is highly suspect for the wrath of the bushies, she knows too much.

One can imagine Cheney and any WH witness will claim that they can not answer the questions as it is top secret stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
14. Jubilation is premature.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 10:55 AM by igil
The Wilson/Plame attorney has made the claim, but it's far from settled. (Dang: In the last week I've seen distressingly many cases where people take "claim" to mean "reality as established by repeated independent observation".)

Clinton was made to testify over things that arguably are never part of a president's duties: sexual harrassment that occurred prior to his inauguration. (on edit: IIRC. I really tried to avoid anything dealing with the anti-Clinton rhetoric of the '90s.)

This happened after Cheney's inauguration. And arguably the VP slot is political, and politics is part of the job. Ultimately it depends on what the lower courts (and possibly the appeal courts at various levels) have to say about it. That's far from certain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bring it on Wilson!!! Make the ass squirm!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onecent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
19. Kick and Recommend. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. If Cheney isn't immune
then it will open up allsorts of links (including his part in the 9/11 attacks)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. Kick. Time for Darth Cheney to sweat a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. Kick and Hot Damn!! Let him stew in his own acid juices
and boil for awhile

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffersons Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
26. K&R LOL!!! oops...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
27. Bill Clinton did not have immunity for Paula Jones' lawsuit
He still didn't even after the vast right wing conspirators persuaded Ms. Jones not settle and press forward in court, at which point the damn thing was nothing more than a glorified nuisance suit.

So, tell me again, Mr. Cheney, why you should have immunity from a lawsuit that touches on your abuse of national security?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
28. heh heh heh. Shoot 'em in the face DICK! RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND BITCH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC