digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

VIDEO: Libby Destroyed Evidence Before Testifying, Cheney ‘Deeply Involved’

thinkprogress.org — MSNBC has breaking news from the trial of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 23, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

116 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -9/+92Basically: "Cheney first government official to leak Plame to Libby."



    This is very serious. Cheney is more than "deeply involved", he is the cause of the leak.

    -1 Bush Administration

  • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -10/+87Treasonous
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+78I think they've proven time and again that they don't believe the law applies to them.
  • xoxuxox, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50I guess this is what happens when you shoot a secret in the face with a shotgun.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48@ScornForSega

    Did you read the article? This wasn't just something between just the two of them...Cheney instructed Libby to leak Plame to the press.
  • ElGranMonkador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26you get tried for perjury. thats why lil' kim is in jail
  • EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What happens when you lie under oath? :P
  • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Meh, not exactly treason. But serious enough that Cheney should resign and be put on trial.

    I hope it is so. Getting rid of Cheney would keep us out of war with Iran.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Dead babies found buried in Cheney's garden... no charges expected to be filed"
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

    Here they go, starting to eat their own.
  • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Wow, this is not Cheney's day, stocks Biden this . . . sucks to suck at life.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I think the next set of questions that we need to start asking is pretty clear:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAX20051105&articleId=1185
  • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17God I hope you're kidding Crass.

    If you believe that receiving oral sex is somehow worse than purposefully ousting a secret government operative thereby destroying her career and endangering the lives of her family over political differences, and doing so in a way that would spread blame around to anyone but the man in control, all the while lying and courting hidden agendas, well...there's no hope for you. You really think that God supports lying, cheating, stealing, and purposeful malign over adultry?

    Again, I'm going to assume that you're kidding (because you'd otherwise be displaying a level of ignorance that I thought was limited to crustaceans and that lint that collects in my navel), but if you're not, I think that you and people like you need to take the initiative: go buy Sealand, rename it Mastubatory Religious Self-Aggrandizement-ville, put up a giant cross so that real people know to avoid you, and make a national anthem that - somewhere - includes the words, "we know *****-all about morality unless it's written down for us."
  • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15For a second there I read 'burns' as in Mr. Burns, which admittedly would be an improvement over Cheney.
  • Neumahn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Throw the bastards out and put the bums in.
  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I thought Armitage admitted he was Novak's source.
  • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Phatt138, Yes I was only kidding. I was reply to the comment by combustion8 "same thing that happened to clinton I pressume.. nothing.". Which I understood as a jab towards Clinton for the Monica Lewinski controversy, and that since Clinton got off scott free that Cheney should be off scott free. So I tried to flip that on him and make it sound absurd, by trying to make a lie about having sex with a woman (that was no ones buisness in the first place anyways) look worse than what cheney has done when in fact what Clinton did was 100% harmless.
  • billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Burns...Bums...Cheney...I've often thought of Dick Cheney as Mr Burns of the Simpsons. Same body, same crooked face, same amount of evil.
  • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12They should give him the same sentance that they gave Former Clinton Samuel Berger.

    $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. Harsh...
  • combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15same thing that happened to clinton I pressume.. nothing.
  • dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9“An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history.”

    -President Gerald Ford, 1970
  • thewump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow.. looks like Cheney has shot himself in the foot.. Makes a change from shooting his friends.
  • ferndave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Crass22

    You forgot the sarcasm tag. It might have saved your funny comment.
  • fangorious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Between that, and attempting to perpetuate the myth that the President made a false statement during the State of the Union ('recieving' uranium from Niger =/= 'seeking' uranium from Niger), marked as inaccurate."

    uh, the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union Address specifically says "sought", so I don't think it's a myth.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

    President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So . . . as these bastards drag us into a war with Iran (who has NOT violated the nuclear proliferation treaty, who has signed it unlike Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, and who has NOT attacked us unlike the Saudi's) . . .

    Can we FINALLY start to demand trials for high crimes and misdemeanors?

    Outing Plame (responsible for tracking nuclear proliferation in the middle east) endangered and probably killed many of her sources, per her life at risk, and cost the US a tremendous intelligence resource.

    That is the LEAST of Cheney's crimes. We cannot rest until he is tried, convicted and jailed for his crimes against our nation. Have you called your congressman today? If we all call them five days a week, I think they'll get the notion that maybe, just maybe, we'll hold them accountable for what they allow these criminals to do.
  • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sounds like a Kennedy to me.
  • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thats because they weren't raped.
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apparently opposing Bush / Cheney requires one to worship the Clintons based on posts such as those by "foxifiednutjob". If you were to say Bush / Cheney are the worst pair to occupy the office in our history I would be hard pressed to disagree. -but-
    The democratic party is not going to save you. They are avoiding taking any real action to stop the executive branch, all I see are word fights and empty threats.
    Please show me where they've done one concrete thing to say:
    -repeal the patriot act
    -cut off funding for the Iraq war
    -cut off funding for any military action against Iran.
    They CAN do it you know, that's how Vietnam ended.


    I'm a conservative who believes the Constitution and Bill of Rights reign supreme. No political party has the right to ***** with them, none. I am NOT a republican and in no way does any political party represent me or my views. In 2006 people of all political persuasions voted democrats into control of the legislature in the hopes the executive branch would be brought back into balance, impeached, etc. Beyond a general strike and taking to the streets in peaceful protest there's nothing else we can do. Do not make the mistake of thinking the democrats are going to serve the public's wishes any more than the Republicans have. They are bought and paid for by the same exact people who own Bush / Cheney. The agenda of destroying America and looting it's wealth will continue.

    Let's look at what the democrats "have" accomplished so far.

    -Added a strongly worded request that Bush not spend the money approved for Iraq on further spending in Iraq. (Which Bush can ignore and has)
    -Attempted to add legislation which would require any website with more than 500 page views per month that expresses any political content at all to register as a lobbying firm and report to Congress. (barely got taken out of the bill once word got out) Why would the democrats be trying to stifle free speech and political dissent much as the republicans have? Hmmm.
    -Made quite a few empty threats to "show Bush the way" while making it very clear before even taking office that "impeachment is off the table".

    The best thing for this country would be to start oversight hearings with subpoena power and begin indicting / impeaching this entire administration including the cabinet and every "special group" they've set up in the CIA, NSA etc. It's just not going to happen. Non important people may resign, hell Cheney may even resign - it won't change a damn thing. Until we are willing to admit that the political parties; both of them, are completely controlled and no longer represent the people, clean house in Washington and keep cleaning it every two years we will continue to slide into a police state, a North American union and eventually, global govt with the bankers running the show.

    This is your new age, I hope you enjoy it.
  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Iran: The Unthinkable War,
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/

    The reason the Bush Administration does not fear indictment is because they believe they are _above_ the law. The executive branch enforces laws, it wages war, it can now arrest and torture people. It can declare martial law . . . Cheney considers himself above the law . . . and so far he appears to be right.
  • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10crass22 please /sarcasm many diggers just arn't up to actually figuring it out for themselves.
  • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Gendolookin -

    The law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

    Note that the law stipulates, "in or recently in" covert roles. That's what led to the investigation by Fitzgerald. The purpose of that investigation was to determine whether the law had, in fact, been broken. That question hasn't been resolved, and it looks as though it's not going to be.

    The reason behind the law (and why it applies even for agents who are no longer covert) is that when an undercover agent's name becomes known, any foreign agencies who have ever dealt with that agent will do some serious digging to see if that person ever had dealings with them, and to see who else that name might lead to. The concern is collateral damage - other agents being exposed. In this case, we got lucky, and the careless use of a CIA operative's name as part of a petty revenge had little negative affect in the intelligence community.

    During the course of the investigation, however, Fitzgerald interviewed Libby, and felt that he was deliberately obstructing the investigation. This is what Libby is on trial for. It has little to do with the original investigation, except that Libby allegedly lied to investigators in order to minimize his role in the affair.

    So, if the allegations are true, then a law has been broken. But not the one that was being investigated in the first place.

    The only real reason this is interesting is that it looks as though Libby's defense is going to try and drag Cheney/Rove down with him.

  • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8You guys screaming "no laws broken" are the perfect material for oppressive governments. Concentration camps and torture in communist states also did not break any laws.
  • timla, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Armitage was the initial source, Libby is on trial just for trying to coverup/forget his and Cheney's roll in the whole affair.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Novak.27s_.22primary_source.22:_Richard_Armitage

    I dislike the current administration, but other then being publicly humiliating, I do not think this will amount to much.
  • bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If it's determined no laws were broken, at what point do we get out in the streets and burn *****? Yes, that's sarcasm.
  • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Please don't post crap from thinkprogress.org. It makes even Fox look unbiased, in comparison. I don't watch/read Fox and I won't watch/read thinkprogress.org "

    QFT
  • kevinvsgodzilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this doesn't force the Dems in Congress to have his corrupt ass removed (sorry, Pelosi, it's gotta be done girl), then someone needs to give Cheney a blow job to get the ball rolling. It nearly cost Slick Willie his presidency. In this sorry republic called America, only a hummer will get you fired, not war profiteering through Halliburton or leaking the name of an infield CIA agent.
  • DeflatorMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And here's the evidence that MSNBC and Shuster made it up and are covering up the fact that they got caught doing it:

    "It was not clear if Fitzgerald meant that an attempt was made to destroy the note or that Libby had forgotten about it. In any case, the note was recovered and is part of the evidence."

    http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTBiMzA0ODMzNGE5ZTA2ZWU0NzkxZmRiZDM3MDBjZmQ=
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Cheney a blow job"

    Yeah, thanks for that image of a fat growling Cheney with his penis sticking out of his pants.
  • habfan29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This line kind of made me worry:

    "14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

    A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment. "

  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're such a retard. It was shown long ago that the original leak was by Armitage, who was against the war. Then was no vast right wing conspiracy, just a bunch of people covering their asses for their mistakes. If you really cared about justice, you'd be complaining that nothing has happened to Armitage. Instead, you want to see Cheney get in trouble to advance your cause. You don't care about justice. You're just another Ann Coulter, only playing for the left wing.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55 DEFERMENTS, 3 DUIs, A SHOT LAWYER & HIGH TREASON?!

    Are these the "values" you nutbar, foxified, warmongering, status-seeker psychos speak of?
  • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@ScornForSega:
    "Indict Cheney and I'll get excited. 'Till then... meh."
    Screw that. Impeach Cheney and then put him on trial in the Senate. Until then, Meh!
  • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Uhh yeah, iF I read only the stUff it Caps is there a secret message. Kthnx
  • CyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think from the phrasing "wiped out" it might have been an email message, that just before testifying Libby deleted from his computer, but the reason it was recovered is because you can never really destroy an email without wiping the hard drives of every computer the email has passed through, which at a minimum is three, plus any backups of those hard drives created while the email resided on them.

    I think overall there is sufficient evidence to go after Cheney for conspiring to leak Plame's ID, but that's above Fitzgerald's paygrade, Cheney would have to be impeached. Since he didn't indict Libby on the leak itself, he couldn't even really list Cheney as an "unindicted co-conspirator" since Cheney apparently didn't conspire to cover up the leak.

    Anyway, for Fitzgerald to be citing the note, Cheney must have mentioned it, or confirmed its existence when he testified before the Grand Jury,




  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is there anything treasonous these bastards haven't done? Since 1920? Right from the days of Prescott Bush and his Nazi connections, GHWB's antics during the Nixon era, and now with these jokers running the country.
  • clyde2801, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It doesn't matter what Cheney did...it's protected by the Patriot Act.
  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It doesn't matter what Cheney did . . . we are soon to have two aircraft carriers and all their attendent bombers and auxillary craft in the Persian Gulf (which we haven't done since the start of the war with Iraq), they are preparing their civilians to be attacked, and the Iraq's are not killing 4-10 us soldiers almost every day, while wounding a dozen or two more and killing about 100 iraqi's a day.

    Do you REALLY think you can pull Cheney out of office? Do you really think these folks believe they are subject to your laws?

    They don't care how many innocent folks die.
    They don't care how many US soldiers are injured or die.
    They don't care how much it costs (the more the better actually)
    They don't care about the opinion of our allies

    Do you know why? Cause like Rumsfeld they will walk away millionaires and retire to some fine secluded spot to live in infinite wealth having destroyed the lives of millions.

    FORCE Congress to hold them accountable. This is our country and the president/vice president don't own us. We Own Them.
  • goodcompany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3BREAKING NEWS: I really hate when I read the words "breaking news" in a digg teaser, and then I go to CNN and in this case also MSNBC and there is no "breaking news" at all. Nice story and all, but it's just news you might say.
  • DerProfi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was waiting for the digg drama queen squad to start with the "And so..." posts. AWESOME!
  • HydroWizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is the scum that is running our country!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.