Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings

Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, �A Case for Hearings,� that declares, �The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.�

In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan�s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, �it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.� The three House members argue that, �Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to �unknowingly [pass] along false information.��

Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that �recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction � this time about Iran�s nuclear capabilities.�

Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses �off the table� in this Congress.

It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi � or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney�s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.

The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an �ask� for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi�s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee�s files.

The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: �What do you want me to do?� The answer can now be: �Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?�

�Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton�s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,� write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.

�The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,� the House members add. �They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.�

Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: �These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President � not our commander in chief � and the resulting impact on the nation�s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.�

They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.

�Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence � not politics � should determine the outcome,� the Judiciary Committee members explain. �Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

The suggestion that the democrats are afraid the HJC hearings will exonerate Bush is absurd, idiotic and preposterous�and that's putting it mildly. Dream on. The conservatives have been putting so much energy into denials and obstruction, whatever they think they might have would do nothing but make them look like fools up against the meticulous body of evidence that has been compiled against Bush. The issues are broad and deep and the committe most definitely does not have to lift a finger to preserve that cloud of suspicion. This is not a question of intent (to impeach or not to impeach), although you really never know what could turn up along the way. Actually, none of us will know what they do or do not have unless the process moves forward. If you are so confident that the republicans can score that laughable slam dunk on Niger, it seems like you would be first in line for that action.

Who pays attention to Bugliosi? John Conyers, the chairman of the HJC, for one, who came out of his longstanding ambivalence and decided to take it to the next level based on the content of that book. Heard him say so in the interview. The link is there. Give it a listen. Something about Bugliosi. No matter how hard you try to discredit him, that obnoxious perfect conviction record of his (21 murder trials, 21 murder convictions) will just keep getting in the way. The dude is really good at what he does�.murder prosecution and conviction. When he speaks, the legal community listens. If he has laid out a case against Bush for murder, you can bet the farm it would be a good read. You may hate his politics, but as a prosecution attorney, he is entirely credible. He did not put himself out on a limb and risk his stellar reputation to sell books. This guy is set to sink his teeth into this long after this hearing is over and long after the changing of the guard. He is relentless, committed and focused and he is not doing this for money or fame�he certainly has enough of that. It is a matter of deep personal satisfaction.

Besides that, he is certainly not the only instigator. There is that "near" 50% support for impeachment....another reason Conyers came off the fence about this. He is also a bulldog with teeth. Whether the impeachment does or does not happen is not what is motivating either one of them. Kucinich is big on impeachment, but for him it also boils down to the same thing. The evidence is compelling and they simply want to get to the truth, whatever it turns out to be, and they believe that the rest of us probably have a vested interest in that as well.

It is up to the committee to call anyone they wish to call who they think might have something of value to bring to the table. It is a delusion to think this is just about Niger. That whole episode is almost inconsequential in the grand scheme of it all. That would almost be funny if it weren't so naive. If you would like more democratic rant to discredit, Dennis Kucinich is extremely articulate. His 30-minute interview on C-Span ought to keep you busy until after the election.

I was not aware New Mexico had passed a resolution. I know Maine has one in the works, Alaska has passed one - NR7, Calif has passed 3, Colorado 1, Mass and New Hampshire 1 each. I think Wisconsin is close to passing one as well.

I have no idea how many people were at the March. Any march, if you are for it has zillions of people and if you are against it, it only really had about 25. From watching it I can safely say it had enough people to fill the national mall, however many that is. There were other marches in other states as well. I don't think the marches will change anything especially since we have been told what is going to happen whether we like it or not but if there are enough of us, maybe we can take our country back. I am most worried now about Iran. Bush has already started putting his 21,500 in place..nothing anyone can do about that...but preemptively striking Iran. My worst nightmare is that somehow Iraq will get straightened up enough to have a presentable government (Shi'ia) be armed, trained and technologized by the U.S. and then they will turn on us, instead joining ranks with their Shi'ia brothers and sisters in Iran. God help us all.

It is good to see you on the board again. There are not many regulars anymore. Keep coming back.

The fact of the matter is that Bush is one president who truly, truly deserves to be impeached. He will not be however because it would be a waste of time now. We have more pressing issues on our plate and as a rule Dems do not hold grudges. Future infants will grow up and probably be asked in history and civic class to write a paper on listing all the reasons Bush qualified for impeachment and then write their supposition of the reasons he was not. It would be interesting reading for the elderly.

(This, of course, pertained to CLINTON. You can break the law, fake reasons to start a war and illegally spy on Americans, but don't you DARE have sex!!!! I wonder how many of these holier-than-thou people have the courage or ethics to repeat these words today, pertaining to BUSH.)

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):
And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):
How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):
How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.

Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.

This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the

United States

.

Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.):
Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the president and move on. That's a reasonable question. And I certainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with that.

But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the Constitution, or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems more convenient and expedient?

Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of government based on the rule of law, a system of government in which no one -- no one -- is above the law. We are here because we have a constitution.

A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power.

Rep. Bob Ingliss (R-S.C.):
I think is important to point out here is that we have a constitutional obligation, a constitutional obligation to act. And there are lots of folks who would counsel, Listen, let's just move along. It's sort of the Clinton so-what defense. So what? I committed perjury. So what? I broke the law. Let's just move along. I believe we've got a constitutional obligation to act.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):

Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.):
You know, there are people out all across America every day that help define the nation's character, and they exercise common-sense virtues, whether it's honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, respect, accountability, they pursue excellence, they exercise self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There's duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously.

So those are things that the founders also took seriously. Yet every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the founding fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between good and evil.

So the founders created a system of checks and balances and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means was available to address it. The founders felt impeachment was so important it was included in six different places in the Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachment of the president and other civil officers as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The House of Representatives must use this standard in circumstances and facts of the president's conduct to determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding the highest executive office of this great country.

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):
In the next few days I will cast some of the most important votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be right. But I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.

Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):

I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.

The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame Darkness at Noon is forgotten, or The Gulag Archipelago, but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

Righties - I do not care if it is not scientific, the American people have spoken.

PORTSMOUTH - The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a "prostitution of his profession" as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Don�t let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence � they knew," McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President�s desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the "facts were fixed" in order to legitimize the invasion.

"The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that," McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush�s use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran�s stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such "incontrovertible evidence" from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.
"My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Cheney could deny it. That�s why the report was not produced until three weeks ago," McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting "spin" on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

"It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder," McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution "against enemies, foreign or domestic" by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying "diddly."

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to "wait it out" until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and "as good as any," McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has "admitted" to this "demonstrably impeachable offense."

"The argument for impeachment is overwhelming," Randy Kezar of Kingston said after the event. "Impeachment is constitutionally required."

McGovern�s visit was co-sponsored by NH Codepink, Seacoast Peace Response, NH Peace Action, NH American Friends Service Committee, Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group, NH Veterans for Peace and Witness for Peace-N.E.

I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.

All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.

If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.

You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.

No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.

For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.

And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.

Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.

If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?

I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.

I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.