Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. v. CHENEY: The Plamegate Indictment

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:24 AM
Original message
U.S. v. CHENEY: The Plamegate Indictment
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 12:23 PM by leveymg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/10/105540/799
by leveymg
Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:55:40 AM PDT

Allegations made public yesterday that the Vice President "authorized" his aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to disclose classified CIA documents to the media, may form the basis for indictments under several distinct federal statutes.

Given that these facts were presented to a federal Grand Jury, we should expect that Dick Cheney will, in fact, be indicted.

These are the crimes with which the Vice President will most likely be charged, based on what is publicly known about evidence held by Patrick Fitzgerald and testimony given to the Grand Jury.

MORE BELOW. . .

leveymg's diary :: ::

The essence of the crime of which Cheney stands accused is involvement in a conspiracy to unlawfully disclose classified documents. Specifically, we learned from a letter filed yesterday by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Cheney had told Libby to leak a classified CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) related to Iraq's WMD programs. Murray Waas, The National Journal, "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Disclose Classified Information." http://nationaljournal.com/...

Following alleged instructions from Cheney, Libby testified that beginning with NYT reporter Judith Miller on July 8 2003, he released secret information contained in that document to members of the news media in order to bolster the case for going to war and in order to cast doubt on the accuracy and character of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame. The identity of Plame as an undercover CIA Officer was first published by columnist Robert Novak six days later.

According to a short inside pages New York Times report published this morning, Mr. Libby revealed the classified details of the NIE to Ms. Miller ten days before that document was declassified. See, "Ex-Cheney Aide Testified Leak Was Ordered, Prosecutor Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/...

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: February 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 -- I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, told a grand jury that he was authorized by his "superiors" to disclose classified information to reporters about Iraq's weapons capability in June and July 2003, according to a document filed by a federal prosecutor.

The document shows that Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, was actively engaged in the Bush administration's public relations effort to rebut complaints that there was little evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed or sought weapons of mass destruction, which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The document is part of the prosecutors' case against Mr. Libby, who has been indicted on charges that he lied about his role in exposing the identity of a C.I.A. operative to journalists.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said in a letter to Mr. Libby's lawyers last month that Mr. Libby had testified before the grand jury that "he had contacts with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ('NIE')," that discussed Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."


It should be noted about that Times story that neither the headline nor the lead paragraphs mention Cheney as anything other than Libby's former boss. One must read down to the bottom of the story to learn:

"Mr. Fitzgerald said in his letter that Mr. Libby discussed the contents of the classified report in a July 8 meeting -- 10 days before it was declassified -- with Judith Miller, then a reporter at The Times. Ms. Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify in the leak case, has told the grand jury that Mr. Libby told her about Ms. Wilson at the same meeting."

BACKGROUND:

There's a procedure for declassification of secret documents. That procedure was not followed by the Vice President, Mr. Libby and their confederates prior to releasing at least one National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Declassification is pretty much automatic when requested by the President, but it still has to be done before an NIE can be released.

Those procedures are set by Executive Order. Classified National Security Information, (and Amendments), E.O. 12958.

The Executive Order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. The latest one was issued on April 17, 1995 and took effect on October 14, 1995. E.O. 12958 was amended with E.O. 12972, dated September 18, 1995, E.O. 13142, dated November 19, 1999, and E.O. 13292, dated March 25, 2003.

Unauthorized retention or release of classified docs appears to be a potential violation by Cheney of one or more of several federal felony statutes:

COUNT 1.

(The reader should note that this was the central charge of which Lawrence Franklin was convicted in the ongoing OSP-AIPAC Spy case)

COUNT 1: Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 93 > Sec. 1924. Prev
Sec. 1924. - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term ''classified information of the United States'' means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security

http://www.lii.warwick.ac.uk/...


COUNT 2. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 793

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


COUNT 3. "Conversion" of Public Records

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 641

Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.


COUNT 4. Conspiracy

United States Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 19 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


***

The above grounds for a conspiracy charge stand distinct from those already formulated by Congressman Hinchley, (D, MA) who has called in a resolution for Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate and refer the grand jury evidence that the President and Vice President intentially lied to Congress in order to make a fraudulent case for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Forty members of Congress joined him in that letter.

The 40 other House members who signed Hinchey's letter to Fitzgerald are: Congressmen Neil Abercrombie (HI-01), Tammy Baldwin (WI-02), Xavier Becerra (CA-31), Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-01), John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14), Sam Farr (CA-17), Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07), Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-04), Michael M. Honda (CA-15), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (MI-13), Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10), Barbara Lee (CA-09), Jim McDermott (WA-07) James P. McGovern (MA-03), Cynthia McKinney (GA-04), Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14), Doris Matsui (CA-05), George Miller (CA-07), James P. Moran (VA-08), Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Richard E. Neal (MA-02), Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06), Donald M. Payne (NJ-10), Charles B. Rangel (NY-15), Martin Olav Sabo (MN-05), Bernard Sanders (VT-AL), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), José E. Serrano (NY-16), Louise Slaughter (NY-28), Hilda L. Solis (CA-32), Fortney Pete Stark (CA-13), Edolphus Towns (NY-10) Maxine Waters (CA-35), Lynn Woolsey (CA-06), David Wu (OR-01), and Albert R. Wynn (MD-04) (plus one unrecognizable signature).

###

The full text of the letter to Fitzgerald (minus footnotes), which includes details on the laws that Bush Administration officials possibly violated, follows:

September 15, 2005

United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Request To Expand Investigation

Dear United States Attorney Fitzgerald:

We hereby request that you expand your investigation regarding who in the Bush Administration revealed to the press that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was an undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). We believe that expansion should include investigating the Administration's false and fraudulent claims in January 2003 that Iraq had sought uranium for a nuclear weapon, which the Administration offered as one of the key grounds to justify the war against Iraq.

President Bush made two uranium claims, one in his State of the Union Address to Congress and another in a report that he submitted to Congress concerning Iraq, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made three other uranium claims. We request that you investigate whether such claims violated two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 and 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, that prohibit making false and fraudulent statements to Congress and obstructing the functions of Congress.

You have broad discretion to conduct this investigation. The issues we raise are directly related to your current investigation and clearly fall under your authority. The desire to discredit the information provided by Ambassador Wilson regarding the lack of evidence to support the Administration's contention that Iraq sought uranium from Niger is the nearly-universally accepted motive behind the leak of Mrs. Wilson's identity. In order to fully investigate the disclosure of an undercover CIA agent's identity, it is clear that you should fully investigate the reasons for that disclosure.

As we outline below, we believe that members of the Administration may have violated laws governing communications with Congress with respect to assertions about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Ambassador Wilson's efforts to publicly contradict these assertions seem to be the reason for the uncovering of Mrs. Wilson's identity. It is very likely that you would encounter these assertions during the course of your investigation, and thus their legality should be the subject of your investigation.

The Administration's Claims About Iraq Seeking Uranium Were False And Fraudulent

The uranium claims of the Administration in January 2003 that Iraq had sought uranium for a nuclear weapon were shown to be false because, after intensive post war investigations, the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence that Iraq had sought the uranium. In the months prior to the war, weapons inspectors of the United Nations (U.N.) conducted extensive inspections in Iraq and found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. The Administration has never produced any legitimate actual evidence that Iraq had sought the uranium.

The uranium claims were also fraudulent because although some in the American intelligence community (including the C.I.A.) may have agreed at the time with the British opinion that Iraq had sought uranium, numerous people within the Administration did not tell the whole truth consisting of the contrary views held by the best informed U.S. intelligence officials. C.I.A. Director George Tenet told the White House in October 2002 that C.I.A. analysts believed the reporting on the uranium claim was "weak" and thus the Director told the White House that it should not make the claim. Later that same day, the C.I.A.'s Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence sent a fax to the White House stating that the "evidence is weak." The National Security Council (N.S.C.) believed in January 2003 that the nuclear case against Iraq was weak. Secretary of State Powell was told during meetings at the C.I.A. to vet his U.N. speech of February 5, 2003 that there were doubts about the uranium claim and he therefore kept it out of his speech for that reason. The U.S. government told the U.N. on February 4, 2003 that it could not confirm the uranium reports.

Furthermore, the original draft of the State of the Union Address stated that "we know that has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa," but after the White House consulted with the C.I.A., the White House changed the speech to refer to the British view rather than the American view. The final draft stated that the "British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The parties involved stated that they had no discussions about the credibility of the reporting and the reason for the switch was to identify the source for the uranium claim.


SNIP

The signatories of that Congressional letter may now wish to consider adding additional grounds for that investigation in light of the revelations that Mr. Libby's superiors "authorized" him to disclose classified information in a conspiracy to attack the integrity and character of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer.

MARK G. LEVEY, 2006.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. I skimmed the 4 counts - is 25 years the max that Darth is facing or
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 11:32 AM by stop the bleeding
is there a yet to be determined sentence that could be stiffer?

I counted up 10, 10 and five plus whatever the misd charge/sentence turns out to be correct??

BTW - I work in the background screening industry so reading law and counts is something tha I do in my sleep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. This doesn't include obstruction of justice charges.
Dick could charged with several counts of that crime (I recall 5 years for each count), so he could be facing decades in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. here that - Clink - the sound of your ass being in the hole for decades
thanks for your thoughtful analysis as always Mark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. Cheney will never do one day in jail-leave US and/or pass away
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redirish28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. The question is how soon we might see this happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. That's up to Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Cheney.
If Cheney steps down, perhaps never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpgamerd00d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Can you indict a sitting pres/VP or do they have to be impeached 1st?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smomfr Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Will dumbya say he doesn´t know chainy (no spelling error)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. LOL - I wouldn't put it past him n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
52. Are there any pictures of them together?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. I'm sure he will say he doesn't know Chainey
never heard of him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. He can be indicted, as was Agnew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Ah, I thought he was indicted
So only the president has protection against indictments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
46. Anyone can be indicted...don't believe the dissemblers who say
otherwise. Read the Constitution on this. The Constitution outlines how impeachment works (starts in the House; if passed, requires a trial in the Senate). It is clear in limiting the penalty for conviction to removal from office. After all, the Founders knew enough to keep politicians away from providing jail or fines for political opponents. HOWEVER, it's clear that "the party convicted(e.g, the President, Vice President) is "liable ... to indictment, trial and judgment, and punishment according to law." Any one, lawyer, historian or otherwise who says the president can't be tried in a court of law is not serious or is serving arbitrary power placing the President and Vice President above the law.


Article I, Section 3. " The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Article II. Section 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
50. It is accepted practice
for the person to resign first, before impeachment becomes an issue when a high official is about to get indicted.

Scooter Libby was the first high official in decades to get indicted while still on the job, though he resigned as soon as the indictments came down.

Of course, the freepers argued for years that you can indict a sitting president, so I don't see why they should change their minds now. :sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keopeli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
53. You can indict a sitting President - remember Monicagate?
The Supreme Court at the time actually chimed in and said it was OK to indict a sitting President.

The Republicans cheered at the time. But it would be very hard for this Supreme Court, just a few years later, to rule otherwise.

In fact, I believe the vote was unanimous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. excellent post. rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. K & R !
Good post !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. Outstanding post Mark!! Recommended.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. No need for impeachment. Frog march the DICK now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R!
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. Terrific post. K&R, and thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. What do you reckon comes next?
I think Fitzgerald may have indicted Cheney already (sealed) and kept secret - surely there are enough grounds for an indictment at least? Impeachment maybe more tricky?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Cheney already indicted? Could be, maybe - we'll see.
Merely seeing there are grounds for indictment, and realizing it's possible, are "Reasons to be Cheerful - 1,2,3 . . ."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Fitz's team are so secretive that it could be possible?
hope they get Gonzales too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:20 PM
Original message
If he does it would be more probable that Rove/Hadley/Rice or any other
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 01:22 PM by stop the bleeding
major play from WHIG, however, as much as I hate gonzo I don't think he really fits into this investigation.

For more information on who might have sealed indictments check this out: see posts# 24,37,39,41,43,47,49 they all pretty much follow each other so it shouldn't be hard to track.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x362957#367920
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
25. did Judge Walton throw them out?
I'm not sure how the jud. system works on this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. hard to tell, post#47 of the DU thread I provided talks about this in
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 01:45 PM by stop the bleeding
more detail, but the way I understand it is once an indictment is sealed, it can stay sealed indefinitely through extensions including one GJ to the next GJ. One would also think that if the GJ, judge and Pros. all thought that a bar was met for a sealed indictment to be issued, then one would assume that the indictment would remain intact unless new evidence comes out to disprove what the indictment claims. But I may be wrong on this.


on edit: here is link to post#47

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x362957#370385


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Does this mean Cheny could have been indicted but wouldn't have known he..
I wonder is he part of the banking? When does the Grand Jury meeting again - if it's 60 days from the last one, maybe they are keeping them sealed? I guess I'll have to read up US law.

quote former prosecutor - sealed indictments (4.00 / 4)

Are not revealed to the target, the evidence is not revealed (although both the names and the broad evidence usually comes out).

The purpose is to continue the investigation while "banking" indictments to crimes you already know were committed. It means there will be a new GJ and more investigation.

Indictments are sealed for a set period (60 days I think) but the seals are extended as a matter of course until the total investigation is over. Fitzmas may be waaaaaaay off now, maybe not even before the 06 elections. So, we should hope, that if they are sealed, the info leaks or Fitz cleans it all up by the summer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. the only people that would know would be court personnel ie: clerk, judge
and lawyers present and the GJ. The GJ does not have a set schedule per say, but when they meet it is usually on Wednesdays and Fridays. The sealed indictments have a life span of 60 days, but the Prosecutor can apply for extensions at anytime if needed. In cases like this(meaning multi year investigations) if there are sealed indictments then you better believe whoever they are on (Rove/Hadley/Rice) will not know until the indictments are needed/opened.

As before I may be wrong but this is my limited understanding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Thanks for info
it may be juicier than we think then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Walton won't start hearing Libby's case until Jan. 07
Fitz is free to present any evidence he sees fit to the Grand Jury. If Cheney were indicted, it would likely go before a different Judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. A hand-picked one probably?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. yep he was picked by * n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. delete - some reason post duped
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 01:21 PM by stop the bleeding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gilpo Donating Member (601 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Correct--Impeachment is political at the heart of it where indictment is..
..legal at the heart of it. Reference the impeachment of Clinton (I know he was pres and Darth is VP, but I think the comparison stands on its own). If Darth is indicted, I think impeachment would be unnecessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merbex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. They'll just say it's another old law that they can ignore n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
20. Great post K&R! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
27. Nominated!
Great post. Great thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Thanks.
Cold ones always taste best on Fridays! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Good stuff-- K n R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
34. TX leveymg ! For keeping us so well informed and for all your effort! n/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. Be still my heart
Fraud against the United States. Conspiracy. That's exctually what it is. Oh if only...what's the chance of this happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
36. Cheney is going have to be physically removed from office
and he plans to be President... He is truly an evil doer!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
56. He is President.
No one told you?

Pay attention!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
39. ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
41. What a fabulous thread!
I hope someone runs with it and our hopes and dreams come to fruition.

K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
42. Violation of Espionage Acts
Long ago, in a previous life, I worked in the military-industrial complex. Everyone who had a security clearance received very clear instruction re the handling of classified material.
1. In order to legally receive classified material, you
a. Had to have the requisite security clearance for that level of classification AND
b. Had to have "A need to know" the classified information.

2. In order to pass on any classified material to another party, you must determine that the
recipient
a. Has the requisite clearance AND
b. Has "A need to know" the classified information.

These requirements were regularly drummed into people (we were fighting the cold war at the time).
I doubt whether these simple rules would have changed over the years. If you violated these rules, you were in very deep doo doo, and could be prosecuted under various espionage acts.

Therefore Libby's superior(s) would be in violation of the espionage acts for authorizing the dissemination of classified material, and Libby himself would be guilty of passing them along to reporters or others. Libby even had an affirmative responsibility to refuse the request.

With any luck, Fitzgerald may be able to nail Libby, Cheney, and others? on violating the espionage act, as well as perjury and obstruction of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
43. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
44. but cheny has not been charged:


The essence of the crime of which Cheney stands accused is involvement in a conspiracy to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
45. About time. Up til now it's been Cheney vs. the U.S.
I hope that vampire is enjoying his last few years of freedom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
47. Kicking for the cause!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Cheney will stop his heart before
this happens. These are some shameless criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Darth Cheney has around $140 Mill.
That can buy him a lot of Legal Beagles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
51. Kick - with high hopes
Hope for the future of this nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
54. Indict Crashcart!
Woohoo!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
55. Can you say "P-A-R-D-O-N" boys & girls?
This human turd will spend lesstime in prison that my Ex-Governor (Rowland) did. Junior will pardon him faster than you can say DICK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. kick
for at least a day in jail...
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, 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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