A Case For Perjury Against Cheney?

[Rose Siding]

From June 5, 2004:

WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by federal prosecutors who asked whether he knew of anyone at the White House who had improperly disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA officer, people who have been involved in official discussions about the case said yesterday.

Cheney also was asked about conversations with senior aides, including his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, according to people officially informed about the case. In addition, those people said, Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name the officer. It was not clear how Cheney responded to the prosecutors' questions.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040605/news_1n5leak.html

Jane at firedoglake writes (via Atrios)...

A lot of people are saying that the NYT article does not indicate that Dick Cheney committed a crime, it simply says he was aware of the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson situation. I beg to differ.

Here is the key paragraph:

Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald last year under oath. That would make it perjury to tell a lie. Although Republican logic tells us that perjury is only a crime if you're getting a blow job in the bargain, a legitimate US attorney might not see it that way.

What indication do we have that Cheney lied? Well, if Cheney he had told the truth when he was interviewed last year, i.e., that he was Scooter Libby's source, Fitzgerald would not have needed to threaten Judy Miller and Matt Cooper with jail in order to counter Scooter Libby's testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame's identity from journalists.

Also from the Times article:

It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.

The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife.

In other words: the testimonies of Cooper and Miller were necessary to bust Libby in a lie.

The decision of Judges Tatel, Henderson and Sentelle against Judy Miller was decided on February 15, 2005 and reissued April 4, 2005. Without getting into elaborate quotes, basically they agreed that there was no other way to get the information they needed other than from these journalists. They did not resort to jailing Miller or Cooper lightly without first having exhausted all other possibilities.

Which means Fitzgerald was not sitting on some big cathartic confession from Dick Cheney at the time.

Cheney lied. Under oath. Put any Republican (and a few DINOs) in the wayback machine, and they will tell you -- this is an impeachable offense.

Update: Everyone seems to be concerned that the Times may have gotten the "under oath" thing wrong. My inclination is to believe the Times is being VERY CAREFUL about this shit at this point in the game, but I promise to check it out tomorrow and report back. Regardless of whether Cheney was under oath or not, lying to Fitzgerald would still be a crime.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/dick-cheney-perjury-bitches-perjury.html

Regarding the point about Cheney being under oath, I'm not sure that would matter. Fitz is authorized to investigate and prosecute crimes committed in the course of his investigation, like perjury and obstruction

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

[yellowcanine]

1. Good points. It is not likely that Libby would have maintained the

fiction that he heard about Plame from reporters if Cheney was testifying truthfully about being the source of Plame's name. Certainly Cheney would have informed Libby that he was telling the truth, wouldn't he? Unless he was setting up Libby for perjury.

[clydefrand]

2. We don't really know what Cheney said to Fitz, do we? But

we do know for a fact that Cheney said on national tv that he did not know Wilson and this is after the time that Cheney was informed by Tenet.

[Rose Siding]

3. If he *had* mentioned the conversation with Libby,

why would the prosecutor gone to the trouble of jailing a reporter to get Libby's name from her? (and if he didn't mention it, wouldn't that be obstruction?)

I think Jane argues that point well :shrug:

[bleever]

5. I agree, most heartily.

Looks like I might get that pony for Fitzmas after all!

:)

[Rose Siding]

4. The June 5 article says he wasn't under oath for that interview

snip>
It is not clear when or where Cheney was interviewed, but the vice president was not questioned under oath, nor has he been asked to appear before the grand jury impaneled for the case, according to people officially informed about the case.

But he was also present at the interview bush gave Fitz at the WH. That one wasn't reported as being under oath either, as I recall.

[bleever]

6. Making a false statement to a federal officer, even if not under oath,

is called obstruction of justice, an indictable offense.

It goes on your Permanent Record.

:)

[Neil Lisst]

7. I think Cheney may be an unindicted co-conspirator.

Or, he could go down for the outing.

[garybeck]

8. that's not all for Mr. Cheney

I would expect multiple endictments. he also was directly involved in the outing.

[Rose Siding]

9. An obstruction charge would be easier to prove

However it's done, no wonder the WH is sweating bullets.