Cheney Failed to Answer 72 FBI Questions

[kpete]

Source: CBS News

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2009
Cheney Failed to Answer 72 FBI Questions
Documents from Interview in Valerie Plame Case Show Vice President was Unclear on Many Points, Big and Small


(AP) Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald famously declared in the Valerie Plame affair that "there is a cloud over the vice president." Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation underscores why Fitzgerald felt that way.

On 72 occasions, according to the 28-page FBI summary, Cheney equivocated to the FBI during his lengthy May 2004 interview, saying he could not be certain in his answers to questions about matters large and small in the Plame controversy.

The Cheney interview reflects a team of prosecutors and FBI agents trying to find out whether the leaks of Plame's CIA identity were orchestrated at the highest level of the White House and carried out by, among others, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Among the most basic questions for Cheney in the Plame probe: How did Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA?

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/02/politics/main5491257.shtml

---

Update to add helpful article (lots of good links to info):
What Did Dick Cheney Know and When Did He Know it?
By Max Fisher on October 31, 2009 2:50pm
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/What-Did-Dick-Cheney-Know-and-When-Did-He-Know-it-1459

[xchrom]

1. oh this is getting Yummy!

:popcorn:

[dysfunctional press]

26. it actually just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

because i know that it's NOT going to lead to cheney facing justice.

[Capt. America]

2. If the vice-president does it is not a crime.

[L. Coyote]

40. Tell that to Spiro Agnew!

:rofl: Nixon's good old buddy connection to the NJ mob :rofl:

[wildbilln864]

3. k&r! nt

[samsingh]

4. how does cheney get away with being above the law?

[edwardian]

5. Cowards in power

refuse to make one of their own pay for his crimes. Appeasement, complicity, fear of extortion or even of airplane crashes, are probable answers, but I prefer cowardice as the immediate cause.

[NoSheep]

7. He has a reputation for shooting people in the face

[L. Coyote]

41. Alberto Gonzales and Fitzgerald.

Don't fall for the Fitzmas B.S. and you will understand the answer to your question.

Two people celebrate Fitzmas, Bush and Cheney, because they were let off the hook by their inside guy!

[Major Hogwash]

6. What's the capital of South Dakota?

Pierre.

Ah-ha!! So, you met with Pierre!!

[Holy Moly]

8. Honor Amongst Thieves

Rejoice
For the good ole Honor Amongst Thieves
ethics that rules our noble polotical
hacks dictates that Herr dickie shalt receive
yet another honorable deferment from the immaculately ethical Obamalamadingdong
inJustice Department.

[Ezlivin]

9. "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

May 23, 2003 Pages 8-9 of the official 9/11 Commission PDF file transcript (emphasis added).

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that. And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

Later, Mineta is questioned about the shoot down order referred to by Hamilton, in reference to Flight 93

MR. HAMILTON:With respect to Flight 93, what type of information were you and the Vice President receiving about that flight?

MR. MINETA:The only information we had at that point was when it crashed.

MR. HAMILTON: I see. You didn't know beforehand about that airplane.

MR. MINETA: I did not.

MR. HAMILTON: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down?

MR. MINETA: No, sir.

MR. HAMILTON: But there were military planes in the air in position to shoot down commercial aircraft.

MR. MINETA: That's right. The planes had been scrambled, I believe, from Otis at that point.

[pjt7]

10. How do we put Cheney away in court

with this news?

Any sharp legal minds out there?

[No Elephants]

32. You don't need a sharp legal mind. You need to reverse Obama's decision not to prosecute

Bushco, unless maybe some CIA interrogator seriously exceeded the very broad paramenters of the phoney legal memos on torture. In fact, one of the authors of those memos is still a federal judge, probably his reward from Bushco for writing the memos.

Enjoy your sleep, America.

[Major Hogwash]

11. Excellent.

Now, get back to work at the nuclear plant, Homer.

[rocktivity]

12. HOW did Libby find out about Plame? A question I asked from the git-go

Well, I asked it on January 29, 2007, to be exact.


rocktivity

[DefenseLawyer]

13. So what?

Other than for posterity? Everybody's "hero" Fitzgerald let the Vice-President walk. It's over and it's been over for a long time.

[Wizard777]

14. Cheney was only ever concerned with one question.

Have the checks to Halliburton cleared?

[Botany]

15. Waterboard his ass

And see if Cheney's memory improves.




That is Cheney's handwriting asking about Plame on Joe Wilson's article.

[laylah]

16. So what does that matter?

Will it change anything? For sure not.

[pjt7]

17. Is this legal case dead?

.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. The federal statute of limitations is 5 years.

This statement was made in.....? Anyone? Anyone? 2004.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Not if new information comes to light.

He wasn't charged with anything yet, and the statutes doesn't start ending when the crime was committed, but when the crime was discovered.

New evidence can even cause a whole new case to be heard.

[DefenseLawyer]

37. What is this "new evidence" of which you speak?

There is none. The statement was made to the FBI and the prosecution. It is nonsensical to suggest that it is "new evidence". Beyond that, I have no idea what "the statute doesn't start ending" means, but it is not correct that the statute of limitations is impacted by "new evidence coming to light". If that were the case, the statute of limitations would essentially not exist, as prosecutors would always be able to point to some "new evidence" to reopen a case. The statute of limitations starts running when the crime was committed. It is only tolled if it can be shown that the Defendant actively hid his crime, by threatening witnesses for example. There are examples of new evidence in murder cases allowing a prosecution years later, but there is generally no statute of limitations in murder cases. That may be what you are thinking of.

[Major Hogwash]

46. Dooood, what I said is the truth, what you said was just air.

If a body isn't found for 5 years, is the case over because the murder was committed 5 years ago?
No, sorry, the prosecution's case starts when the body is discovered and evidence is obtained.

Treason has no federal statute of limitations - like murder, it does not have a time limit.

Prosecutors have brought new evidence to reopen cases many, many times.
I guess that comes as news to you.

"The statute of limitations starts running when the crime was committed."
Absolutely false.
Even in the case of robbery, when a criminal is apprehended, he can be prosecuted for it many many years from the date of the robbery.
Just like in rapes that use DNA samples to prosecute rapists that are found many years after the crime.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. There is no statute of limitations for murder, "dooood"

So your murder example is utterly without relevance. In most jurisdictions there is likewise no statute of limitations for rape, so again, your example is without relevance. In your robbery example, that would only be true if charges had been filed and the criminal escapes or jumps bail. Since the statute of limitations is a limitation on when charges can be filed, once charges have been filed, it no longer applies. In that scenario then, yes a case could be brought "years later" if the fugitive is eventually found. Otherwise, for crimes which have a statute of limitations, unless, as I said previously, it can be shown that the defendant caused the case not to be discovered (by threatening witnesses, etc.) you are just wrong. Sorry. You are obviously a faithful viewer of "Law & Order" and I commend you for that, but your understanding of how a statute of limitations works is limited at best.

[No Elephants]

34. Federal statute of limitations is 5 years for which crime?

[EFerrari]

19. The FBI does't want to "catch" Dick Cheney. They're too busy

covering up the Amerithrax case for him.

[troubledamerican]

25. +1. Well said. But

calling it "Amerithrax" is using Mueller's own specially-designed obfuscating terminology.

"Amerithrax" is a term that is used to disguise "Anthrax Attacks" because most ordinary citizens do not know what "Amerithrax" is.

This type of keyword hijacking/keyword disinfo/keyword confusion is a typical intelligence community specialty.

Your point is absolutely correct, however. When considering Mueller's FBI, consider this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1214-01.htm

[EFerrari]

27. You're right about that. And thanks for that link.

I'll check it out.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Obama will make sure that nothing come of this.

[avaistheone1]

29. Yes we can count on Obama...

for that.

[L. Coyote]

42. Sidley Austin intern "at work"

Must be comforting to Bush attorneys to have their intern in the White House.

[maxpower]

22. I am so tired of this asshole

Can't he just crawl back under his rock?


Peace,
Max

[polly7]

23. Wouldn't this be a good case for waterboarding?

:shrug:

[dflprincess]

24. All the questions dealt with things that "happened in the past"

so it's all meaningless. We must "put this behind us" for the "good of the country".

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

35. Is that a defense they teach in law school?

Defense Attorney:

Your honor, ladies and gentleman of the jury, even if my client did commit this crime, he should not do the time.

His actions were in the past and only in the past.

In the present, he is sitting in the defendant's chair, not committing any crime whatever, as we can all see.

In the future, he is not committing any crime because he has never had access to a time machine.

Therefore, the past is the only time he could possibly have committed this crime, if indeed he did commit it at all.

And, as we all know, there is never any point punishing crimes that occurred only in the past. In fact, punishing crimes committed only in the past hurts the country. Therefore, it would be treason to punish the defendant for crimes committed in the past. You wouldn't want to commit high treason against the United States of America, would you?

I rest my case.




Judge:

I refuse to allow miscarriages of justice, like punishing crimes committed in the past, to continue any longer. Besides, I am a patriot and want nothing to do with harming this great country. Case dismissed.


Bailiff, release the prisoner forthwith, along with every other prisoner in the nation. Close the prosecutors' and DA offices, too.

[dflprincess]

44. I have made that same point

(and it's been made on Stephanie Miller) - though not as cleverly as you did in your post.

By the time it gets to trial, all crime has happened in the past. If we follow the administration's logic about Bushco's crimes through - then no one would ever be tried for anything. I'd expect better from a lawyer, wouldn't you?

[Kablooie]

28. Why is it so damned simple for this monster to get away without ANY repurcussions?

"I don't remember." seems to be an airtight alibi to anything for him.

[FiveGoodMen]

45. Because the current government has his back.

Sorry.

There's really no other explanation.

Obama is Bush III.

[Steerpike]

31. great

This information and 5 bucks will get you a happy meal....

[LaPera]

33. This bullshit was in May 2004 interview - when things were still fresh in the evil wicked creatures

diseased mind....

[SpiralHawk]

36. Five Deferments Cheney is such a Republicon (liar)

If it is republicon, it is lying. That's a fact.

[wizstars]

38. The REAL question is...

...to paraphrase National Lampoon's old skewer, "What did Dick Cheney know, and when did he STOP KNOWING IT??"

does anybody think that fire in Cheney's office a couple years ago was an accident???

[L. Coyote]

43. Destroying evidence can result in an accidental fire,

so, yes, I suspect the fire was an accident that happened because someone was burning something.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

39. I missed recommending this by 1 minute

:kick: