Can the Vice President be indicted?

[techs]

Todays revelations from Bob Woodward seem to point to Cheney as the one who first leaked, or also leaked info about Valerie Plame.
So I was wondering if the Vice President can be indicted by the the courts or does he only answer to Congress like the President?
At first I thought he was immune but then I thought of Agnew and I seem to remember he resigned when he was indicted.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: techs
Todays revelations from Bob Woodward seem to point to Cheney as the one who first leaked, or also leaked info about Valerie Plame.
So I was wondering if the Vice President can be indicted by the the courts or does he only answer to Congress like the President?
At first I thought he was immune but then I thought of Agnew and I seem to remember he resigned when he was indicted.

cheney looks like he's aged about 10yrs in the last few weeks. he's probably not sleeping much

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Agnew was indicted. So yeah... You can indict a vice-president.

 

[conehead433]

He can not only be indicted, he can also go somewhere else.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

is there anything that prevents him from being pardoned?

 

[arsbanned]

Woodward is trying to pull the heat off the admin. I wonder how much they're paying him?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
is there anything that prevents him from being pardoned?

The president can pardon whoever he wants to.

 

[arsbanned]

He said the disclosure of Plame's identity had caused "quite minimal damage" at the CIA and called Fitzgerald "a junkyard dog prosecutor."

See? Woodward is gonna get the admin off. I would think the right-wingers in here would be licking their chops at this news. This whole case has been de-clawed. Woodward is obviously working for Cheney. So now Fitzgerald would have to drill in far enough to disclose Woodwards part in the scheme. Not much chance of that....
So much for "restoring integrity to the Whitehouse" This WH makes any other in our history look like a bunch of alter boys.

How would Woodward know how much damage it caused at the CIA? Hmmm.

 

[Harvey]

He said the disclosure of Plame's identity had caused "quite minimal damage" at the CIA and called Fitzgerald "a junkyard dog prosecutor."

The amount of damage actually done is irrelevant. Plame's identity as a covert agent was classified, and leaking the info is a crime. It's not up to the leaker, or anyone else, to breach the classification.

There can be over-riding reasons for disclosing classified information that may be protected by "whistle blower" statutes. One thing is certain, that was not the reason for outing Valerie Plame's identity. :|

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

He said the disclosure of Plame's identity had caused "quite minimal damage" at the CIA and called Fitzgerald "a junkyard dog prosecutor."

The amount of damage actually done is irrelevant. Plame's identity as a covert agent was classified, and leaking the info is a crime. It's not up to the leaker, or anyone else, to breach the classification.

There can be over-riding reasons for disclosing classified information that may be protected by "whistle blower" statutes. One thing is certain, that was not the reason for outing Valerie Plame's identity. :|

Just a question here. Fitz has spent the better part of two years on this thing. It seems fairly obvious at this time that he knows who leaked the name. I think we all do. It sounds like it was Libby. He was named as the source if I remember correctly. And depending on what comes of this Woodward situation there may be more names coming out in the near future.

So why after all this time do we only have one idictment for lying/obstructing? Why no indictments for what the investigation was actually supposed to go after? It seems to me that if things were as obvious as you seem to believe they are that we'd have some heads rolling by now instead of just an obstruction charge. I'm not trying to minimize the obstruction charges but they are only a side effect of the investigation.

At this point you have to wonder if what happened truly broke the law. I've said it before... what happened was wrong. But there is right and wrong... then there is legal and illegal. And sometimes they don't line up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just a question here. Fitz has spent the better part of two years on this thing. It seems fairly obvious at this time that he knows who leaked the name. I think we all do. It sounds like it was Libby. He was named as the source if I remember correctly. And depending on what comes of this Woodward situation there may be more names coming out in the near future.

So far, we know both Libby and Rove leaked Plame's name. Rove acknowleded that, and reporters confirmed it.

So why after all this time do we only have one idictment for lying/obstructing? Why no indictments for what the investigation was actually supposed to go after? It seems to me that if things were as obvious as you seem to believe they are that we'd have some heads rolling by now instead of just an obstruction charge. I'm not trying to minimize the obstruction charges but they are only a side effect of the investigation.

At this point you have to wonder if what happened truly broke the law. I've said it before... what happened was wrong. But there is right and wrong... then there is legal and illegal. And sometimes they don't line up.

There's a difference between "knowing" something and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. Fitzgerald specifically said he indicted Libby because his lies obscured the facts in the investigation of the underlying charges.

Yes, a crime was committed. Lying under oath to the FBI and the Grand Jury is its own real crime, and I think the indictment doesn't leave much to the imagination about whether Libby lied.

I hope Fitzgerald flips Libby or Woodward has something to contribute to that breaks through the smokescreen and nails the rest of those lying crocks of sh8 in the Whitehouse. :|

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

If he has witnesses and documents then why no indictment?

It seems to me that the real hang up here is trying to prove that Plame's status met the definition of a covert agent under the law. If Fitz had that it'd seem like such a no-brainer at this point to indict Libby.

 

[techs]

Now that I think of it Agnew was indicted for something he did before he became Vice President so maybe that analogy was false.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: techs
Todays revelations from Bob Woodward seem to point to Cheney as the one who first leaked, or also leaked info about Valerie Plame.
So I was wondering if the Vice President can be indicted by the the courts or does he only answer to Congress like the President?
At first I thought he was immune but then I thought of Agnew and I seem to remember he resigned when he was indicted.

I don't understand the big deal with this "leak" case. Plame was already known to be a CIA agent by many different people in the media, long before Novak "leaked" it.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
If he has witnesses and documents then why no indictment?

It seems to me that the real hang up here is trying to prove that Plame's status met the definition of a covert agent under the law. If Fitz had that it'd seem like such a no-brainer at this point to indict Libby.

The primary issue is provingly Libby KNEW she had covert status when he leaked her name. If Libbby leaked her name but didn't know she was a covert agent, he escapes that stipulation. How Libby learned Plame's name in the first place is also a key part of the case, which gets tougher to figure out when Libby lied in front of a grand jury and investigators about it.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't understand the big deal with this "leak" case. Plame was already known to be a CIA agent by many different people in the media, long before Novak "leaked" it.

The issue is how many knew for sure she was a CIA agent, and by the way several of the people learned of her status through Rove's and Libby's leaking. Regardless, some people in the media knowing is different than everyone including foreign intelligence agencies knowing this fact, and the second case potentially can seriously damage national security.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't understand the big deal with this "leak" case. Plame was already known to be a CIA agent by many different people in the media, long before Novak "leaked" it.

The issue is how many knew for sure she was a CIA agent, and by the way several of the people learned of her status through Rove's and Libby's leaking. Regardless, some people in the media knowing is different than everyone including foreign intelligence agencies knowing this fact, and the second case potentially can seriously damage national security.

Considering she wasn't undercover...I highly doubt it damaged national security, at all.

 

[Polish3d]

The only thing that went wrong here in my view was:


1. Anyone who was hurt from Valerie Plame's publicity, if she really was a NOC earlier in her career


2. What I suspect will be a chill on the recruitment of assets because of this leak


For Plame herself, I am not concerned, if she wants to abuse her job and play politics with it, too bad if someone plays politics back and it hurts her career.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Woodward is trying to pull the heat off the admin. I wonder how much they're paying him?

Big bucks. They are using oil company profits from the last quarter.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Frackal
For Plame herself, I am not concerned, if she wants to abuse her job and play politics with it, too bad if someone plays politics back and it hurts her career.

Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? As far as I can determine she didn't abuse her job in any way, at best having minimal involvement, which was not in any way unethical, with Wilson getting assigned to look at the Niger situation. This definately sounds like "blame the victim" syndrome to me.

 

[Lemon law]

My guess is that if Cheney goes W. Bush will go with him. With possible criminal charges aginst both and also perhaps a command performance at the Hague.

Lets face it bad public policy leads to failure. A rising national debt tenable only with low interest rates. A war in Iraq that could rapidly spin out of control. A divided nation with W's popularity falling. Many of W's key players indicted or under investigation. A small cabal of ideologs like Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Rove setting all national policy.--and rather stupidly at that.

And now the chickens are coming home to roost. The first huge chicken was Katrina--showing Bush who ran as a compassionate conservative is neither compassionate or competent.

Ronald Reagan mired in similar problems with Iran Contra turned things around by admitting blame,
firing his old team, and getting a new team of advisors. Bush might be advised to do the same but probably will not.

Some unforseen event may allow Bush to reassert leadership but failing that I look to the skies and see nothing but incoming chickens coming home to roost. With the top Republican legislative leadership under indictment or investigation, few bright spots exist. But if something goes really bad soon, many will be screaming for his scalp especially when the whistleblowers start to desert a sinking ship.

I certainly remember watergate---in early 74 the smart money was on Nixon surviving. Come June of 74 Nixon still had alot of support. Then the last tapes came out and Nixon was gone in early August of 74 with the Republicans who didn't want that profane liar heading the ticket greasing the skids.

Well, election time is less than a year away. Bush may not know it but he may be fighting for more than his political life. When and if the scandals mature, Bush and Cheney may be in deep trouble, racked by scandal, and even less popular than Hurbert Hoover. High crimes and misdemenors cover alot of ground. Just gonna depend on which chickens roost where.

My senario is not likely but time will tell.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry all,

did not mean to double post same message

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Considering she wasn't undercover...I highly doubt it damaged national security, at all.

We've gone over this before, you certainly don't know one way or the other if she had recently been undercover overseas. A brief trip would be all it takes to do something. While we don't know for certain due to further risks to national security by making such data public, there are obvious ways it likely damaged national security. Even if some CIA undercover operative had in fact not had any contact with her for say the last 15 years before Plame's cover was blown, suddenly knowing Plame's previous history potentially allows a foreign intel agency to look through their records and see whom Plame had contact with in order to figure out who is a CIA spy. Even if someonein another country is no longer is an active spy for the CIA, he may end up getting assassinated by a foreign intel agency to discourage other individuals from working for the CIA. If you're worried that some day a leak may blow your identity and lead to your death, you may be less willing to spy for the CIA in the first place. The indications strongly contradict your claim.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I saw something interesting on TV tonight. A reporter and his guest were having a give and take on the issue of Plame being a covert agent. The guest pointed out a fact that I haven't seen on here (or anywhere else for that matter) before.

When Fitz held his press conference a couple of weeks ago in regards to the Libby indictment he repeatedly referred to Plame's status in the CIA as "classified". He never mentioned her as "covert". Now you could say that he got the two terms mixed up but Fitz is a smart guy. He understands the difference between classified and covert. He's been dealing with this issue for almost two years now. He knows the terms inside and out. So call her a classified agent when the issue is over whether she was a covert agent?

I thought it was interesting to see that in light of my questions earlier in this thread. Was Plame's CIA status in line with the law that Fitz is chasing Libby and Rove under?

More and more I'm guessing no.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Considering she wasn't undercover...I highly doubt it damaged national security, at all.

Utterly irrelevant.

Consider the following analogy:

A would-be assassin points a gun at the President and pulls the trigger. And misses.

"No harm done."

So will this person get off with a slap on the wrist?

The fact the outting Plame may not have caused any serious damage to United States security is beside the point, since it might have caused serious damage.