Federal Judge wants to look at Dick Cheneys FBI testimony

[Lemon law]

Little to say, the link says most of it, but the 2004 Cheney testimony will be made public.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._ot/us_cheney_cia_leak

Let the chips fall where they may, but why do I suspect that Dick Cheney lied? Another piece of evidence that may send Dick to the Hague, as the international war criminal that he almost certainly is. And even if Scooter Fibby who took the fall and then was saved by a limited pardon by GWB, ole Scooter may again be smoked out and finally forced to tell the whole truth.

Like a mafia Don who relies on omerta to shelter him, Cheney may finally find omerta leaks, and at last the real perp will be identified.

Maybe the ranting of an irrational lib, but I can hope that justice delayed will not be justice denied.

 

[OCGuy]

The fact that the previous administration has Obama's in their corner means they are sitting very nice.

 

[Fern]

The article doesn't say, but what's prompted the judge to ask for this? I don't think a judge can just unilaterally make such requests. Is there a court case about this going on that he's presiding over?

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't think Cheney (or Bush) were ever under oath.

But lying to and obstructing the FBI investigation could be a big deal, I reckon. Without the gazillion missing emails could be really tough to collaborate anything (especially without Da Scooter).

I hope it was worth it, Mr. Libby.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

The article doesn't say, but what's prompted the judge to ask for this? I don't think a judge can just unilaterally make such requests. Is there a court case about this going on that he's presiding over?

Sharpen them reading skills, Fern. The article says:

In July 2008, the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to Cheney's interview in the investigation. The Justice Department declined to turn over the records, and CREW filed a lawsuit in August.

The Justice Department reported in court filings that it found three documents totaling 67 pages that related to the watchdog group's FOIA request, but said the documents were exempt since they were part of a law enforcement matter and their release could interfere with future cases. They also said the interview contained classified material and that presidential communications were shielded to allow candor with the president and his advisers.

CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.

The judge could want to review Dickwad Cheney's statements as part of ruling on CREW's FOIA request.

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

I don't think Cheney (or Bush) were ever under oath.

But lying to and obstructing the FBI investigation could be a big deal, I reckon.

Lying to the Feds is a felony, regardless of whether it was under oath.

Title 18 USC, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

• (a)

• Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?
  • 
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
  shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  
  (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party?s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
  
  (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to?
  • 
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

 

[techs]

It couldn't have happened to a nicer Dick.

 

[BoomerD]

Darth Cheney brought up on perjury charges? Wouldn't that be sweet?
However, I am not going to hold my breath in anticipation of such an event...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

The article doesn't say, but what's prompted the judge to ask for this? I don't think a judge can just unilaterally make such requests. Is there a court case about this going on that he's presiding over?

Sharpen them reading skills, Fern. The article says:

In July 2008, the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to Cheney's interview in the investigation. The Justice Department declined to turn over the records, and CREW filed a lawsuit in August.

The Justice Department reported in court filings that it found three documents totaling 67 pages that related to the watchdog group's FOIA request, but said the documents were exempt since they were part of a law enforcement matter and their release could interfere with future cases. They also said the interview contained classified material and that presidential communications were shielded to allow candor with the president and his advisers.

CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.

The judge could want to review Dickwad Cheney's statements as part of ruling on CREW's FOIA request.

I think I read just fine.

The author might want to sharpen his writing skills however. No where does she say this judge is presiding over that case. (Nor is any reason given in the article as to why the judge wants to review Cheney's testimony).

I suppose your assumption that the judge is hearing a Freedom of Info case is as good as any, but the article certainly doesn't say it anywhere.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

The author might want to sharpen his writing skills however. No where does she say this judge is presiding over that case. (Nor is any reason given in the article as to why the judge wants to review Cheney's testimony).

I suppose your assumption that the judge is hearing a Freedom of Info case is as good as any, but the article certainly doesn't say it anywhere.

It's a reasonable assumption. Even more reasonable is assuming that a sitting judge wouldn't request the files without at least a presumtion of his own authority to do so.

I'm sure Cheney's attorneys would challenge that if they thought it to be a valid point.
.
.
Scratch that. Regardless of the validity of the point, they'd challenge it if they thought it could be enough of a smoke screen to stretch things out beyond the expiration date on Cheney's pacemaker. :roll:

 

[Corn]

Lets assume for a moment that the documents in question do evidence Cheney's guilt of perjury or the outing of Plame. How do you feel about Obama fighting to keep these documents secret? Let me guess, "disappointing". Where's the outrage? C'mon Harvey, let it out. Obama is a traitor!

Or these documents reveal nothing about Cheney's role in Plamagate other than his innocence.

Silly liberals.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Corn
Lets assume for a moment that the documents in question do evidence Cheney's guilt of perjury or the outing of Plame.
-snip-

I can't see that being the case.

I don't see how any of us in the public is any position to determine that (perjury). The prosecutor had all the info necessary to make that determination and found he didn't perjure himself. I suppose those of us in the public could compare his testimony to public remarks and find where they may differ, even so that's not perjury (sworn testimony differing from public remarks not perjury as long as the sworn testimony is the correct version)

To believe otherwise is to think Fitz didn't do his job; anyway we now know the 'leaker' was Armitage (State Dept employee and no fan of the GWB admin).

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern~~~

To believe otherwise is to think Fitz didn't do his job; anyway we now know the 'leaker' was Armitage (State Dept employee and no fan of the GWB admin).

Fern

I think Armitage was a false flag - and he was rewarded with that cushy board of directors job at ConocoPhillips.

It's very interesting that the Novak/Armitage meeting and the Miller/Libby meeting occurred on the same day.

That's just too convenient. Somebody had to give the okie-dokey for both of them to out Plame on the same day in some type of perverted effort to discredit her husband.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Corn

Lets assume for a moment that the documents in question do evidence Cheney's guilt of perjury or the outing of Plame.
-snip-

I can't see that being the case.

The only thing any of us can't see, right now, is what's in the documents. Anything further is just so much speculation.

OTOH, given Cheney's consumate arrogance and proven penchant for lying, it wouldn't suprise me if he thought he could get away with lying to the Feds.

 

[UberNeuman]

How ironic it would be if Dick's own words fucked himself....

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

How ironic it would be if Dick's own words fucked himself....

It would be more than ironic. It would be a small measure of justice. There's no way he could fuck himself more than he and his thugs fucked our nation and the world. :|

 

[vhx]

No one will be held accountable for anything. Not wiretapping, not torture, not purgery, not shredding emails, etc...

Even if they were somehow to magically get through, I bet a nice presidential pardon will be waiting for them (regardless if Bush or Obama was in office).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
[ anyway we now know the 'leaker' was Armitage (State Dept employee and no fan of the GWB admin).

Fern

A misrepresentation of history. There were multiple, independant leakers, another of which was in the Cheney circle.

 

[PokerGuy]

I just can't help but laugh at the silly frothing-at-the-mouth liberals on this one. This information was already previously reviewed by prosecutors, and there was nothing there they could use. There is no indication of any kind of new investigation whatsoever. This is a case about some group wanting to see the information under the FOIA. Either way, whether the information is released to the public or not, there is no impact to Cheney, other than perhaps public opinion, which he doesn't care about anyway.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe PokerGuy is too young to remember Watergate, but public opinion was still on Nixon's side until a scant few weeks before he was forced to resign.

Public opinion can change very rapidly with the right evidence.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe PokerGuy is too young to remember Watergate, but public opinion was still on Nixon's side until a scant few weeks before he was forced to resign.

Public opinion can change very rapidly with the right evidence.

Actually, I'm plenty old enough to remember watergate, and I think you're missing a critical element: public opinion does not matter at all to Cheney. He's not in office anymore, and he's never going to seek public office again. He doesn't give a crap about it. The *only* thing that would have mattered would be if a prosecutor had found evidence of criminal acts on his part, and that did not happen. The release of these documents will have 0 influence on him, it's just the lefty fringe that will get all hot and bothered

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe PokerGuy is too young to remember Watergate, but public opinion was still on Nixon's side until a scant few weeks before he was forced to resign.

Public opinion can change very rapidly with the right evidence.

Actually, I'm plenty old enough to remember watergate, and I think you're missing a critical element: public opinion does not matter at all to Cheney. He's not in office anymore, and he's never going to seek public office again. He doesn't give a crap about it. The *only* thing that would have mattered would be if a prosecutor had found evidence of criminal acts on his part, and that did not happen. The release of these documents will have 0 influence on him, it's just the lefty fringe that will get all hot and bothered

He sold out a CIA agent for political reasons. How is that only an issue the "lefty fringe" cares about?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe PokerGuy is too young to remember Watergate, but public opinion was still on Nixon's side until a scant few weeks before he was forced to resign.

Public opinion can change very rapidly with the right evidence.

Actually, I'm plenty old enough to remember watergate, and I think you're missing a critical element: public opinion does not matter at all to Cheney. He's not in office anymore, and he's never going to seek public office again. He doesn't give a crap about it. The *only* thing that would have mattered would be if a prosecutor had found evidence of criminal acts on his part, and that did not happen. The release of these documents will have 0 influence on him, it's just the lefty fringe that will get all hot and bothered

He sold out a CIA agent for political reasons. How is that only an issue the "lefty fringe" cares about?

Yawn.. a prosecutor (actually, prosecutors) looked into that allegation and did not find evidence to support that. You can believe whatever you want, but it means nothing.

 

[Lemon law]

Poker guy is probably correct in saying Cheney will not run for public office, but public opinion will matter still matter to Cheney if he gets sent to jail.

If nothing else, if the American public is angry enough at Cheney, its likely to mean he is going to get prosecuted either in a domestic or foreign court.

As it is, its something justice cries out for, a compelling case against Dick Cheney as an international war criminal can be made now, but the worst evidence may not be in yet. But may be coming in the near future. But rest assured, many people, some partisan and some not are looking very hard for Cheney henchmen that may squeal.

When something similar happened to Nixon as the last set of tapes came it, it was the GOP leading the charge to get rid of Nixon ASAP.

 

[Lemon law]

If anyone thinks outing a CIA agent is the totality of the Cheney crimes, they can't see the Forest for the trees. Cheney has been up to all kinds of illegal skulduggery for decades and all Cheney learned from watergate is to hide it better.

Even if its like a mass murder only going to jail for only one murder out of dozens, Cheney only has to be really and totally nailed for one of many of his criminal acts.

And its the slammer for Darth Cheney.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If anyone thinks outing a CIA agent is the totality of the Cheney crimes, they can't see the Forest for the trees. Cheney has been up to all kinds of illegal skulduggery for decades and all Cheney learned from watergate is to hide it better.

Even if its like a mass murder only going to jail for only one murder out of dozens, Cheney only has to be really and totally nailed for one of many of his criminal acts.

And its the slammer for Darth Cheney.

Funnay......really. LL say's Cheney is guilty of decades of criminal acts so it must be true! Who needs proof......or for that matter, a crime to be committed?

Silly liberals.