RNC Statement Shows Cheney Lied, May Be Guilty of Obstructing Justice

nashuaadvocate

(514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jul-12-05 12:24 PM
Original message

RNC Statement Shows Cheney Lied, May Be Guilty of Obstructing Justice

Edited on Tue Jul-12-05 01:11 PM by nashuaadvocate

On July 11th, 2003, Karl Rove, the Chief Adviser to the President of the United States, told Time reporter Matthew Cooper that he knew who had sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson on his fact-finding trip to Niger: Wilson's wife.

According to the RNC statement released today, more than two months later, Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC, on September 14th, 2003, "I don't (know) who sent Joe Wilson (to Niger)."

So: Karl Rove was leaking information to Time that he wasn't willing to share with the Vice President of the United States? A top Administration official (Rove) tells Time that it (the Administration) "knew" who had sent Wilson to Niger, and then two months later another top official (Cheney) denies that knowledge?

I don't think so.

At some point, Rove's supposedly lying to so many people--first Bush, now you'd have to believe he was lying to Cheney, too--that you realize, he didn't lie to any of them: they've all been lying to us.

So, did Cheney repeat this lie to the prosecutor investigating the Plame leak, Attorney Fitzgerald, when the latter interviewed him?

If so, guess what: that's obstruction of justice.

You know, one of the things they tried to impeach Clinton for--and Clinton's deceit was both less direct and pursuant to a civil (not criminal) investigation.

Think about it: if Cheney did tell Fitzgerald that he knew who had sent Wilson, then he would also have been forced to tell him how he got that information--from Rove. Which means Rove would be in a jail-cell right now, either for the leak itself, or for perjury, or for obstruction of justice. The fact that Rove remains free is, politically-speaking, res ipsa loquitur proof ("the thing speaks for itself") that Cheney maintained his claim of ignorance not only to NBC and to America, but to Fitzgerald as well. Which makes him not only a liar, but also, almost certainly, a criminal.

And if it really is true that Rove was withholding information from Cheney, that fact would already have been uncovered and Rove would have been fired from the Bush Administration. The fact that they haven't fired him is, again, at least in political terms, res ipsa loquitur proof that the Administration was wise to the same intelligence Rove had.

And by Administration, I mean President and Vice President.

And by President, I mean the man who told the American people repeatedly that he wanted to uncover the source of the leak and didn't know himself who the leaker was.

But what did he know, and when did he know it?

White House Press Corps reporters have already asked White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan that question, and he's refused to answer; now the RNC statement casts an even greater shadow on whether Cheney and Bush have lied publicly about the Plame leak. That is, did Bush lie to the cameras, in a Lewinsky-like moment, in order to save his corrupt king-maker, Rove?

And what sort of dirt would Rove have to have on Bush for Bush to be willing to do that?

(I've been blogging this stuff pretty heavily, here, for anyone who's interested).