# Are we going to see Vice President Condi Rice . . . real soon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822 "2005-10-18T23:09:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/181 "2005-10-25T20:38:50Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > Link’s fixed now, or works for me anyway. > > From the rest of the information in the NY Times story, it appears Cheney specifically requested information about Wilson from the CIA, and CIA Director George Tenet gave him Plame’s identity as an operative (even if no names were used, which I doubt). > > That is, Cheney requested an investigation into an “enemy” of the administration, got a personal briefing from the Director himself giving him the dirt, then passed secret information on to his chief assistant. This giving of information must have been with the order to pass it to the media, the tacit assumption that this would be done or at least gross negligence as to whether it would be done. Tell me this isn’t some kind of crime, at least in the range of conspiracy etc if not violation of the Espionage Act or the (tightly defined) Intelligence Identities Protection Act. > > It also blows the “didn’t know it was secret” defence out of the water for both Cheney and Libby. Cheney got her identity as an operative personally from the goddamn CIA Director, and Libby knew this. Yeah, I’m with **John Mace** on this one: I’m not sure that it’s a crime for the VP to have “passed secret information on to his chief assistant.” I just can’t imagine that Libby didn’t have proper clearance. Now, what he did with the info after receiving it, only he knows for sure. Anyway, I’m still hearing all kinds of static about the [possibility](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm) that no federal laws were broken at all in the public release of her name by Novak, so how could a “leak” of that same information to a reporter be a crime? I’m finding plenty of exhaustive opinionating, both [pro](http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/14/134416/939) and [con](http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004870.php), on the issue, but nothing conclusive. I don’t know, unless the laws are more clear to Fitzgerald than they are to all these “pundits”, it looks like this is going to come down to someone(s) being charged not with anything even approaching these treasonous acts being thrown around, but perjury or obstruction or some lesser “cover-up” type of crime, not because of anything that was deliberately said, but because of what wasn’t. That could be boring and of little political consequence. Or, it could be the crime of the century… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/182 "2005-10-25T22:11:41Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’d say they all follow logically even if not substantiated. Certainly all of what is underlined occured to Fitzgerald and he presumably would try to find facts to corraborate what is intuitively obvious. No, it doesn’t follow logically, unless you are willing to accept dozens of equally logical scenarios. It’s not intuitively obvious either, unless you start with that conclusion and then work your way back to the facts. I think the problem that so many on the left are having with this whole thing is that they so badly want this to be a proxy for getting back at Bush for the war in Iraq. Instead, it’s going to be one of those “inside the beltway” stories as long as it stays tied to just Rove and Libby (and maybe a few other staffers). Most Americans simply don’t know who those guys are. I doubt very seriously that Fitzgerald has any interest in “exposing the lies of this administration concern Iraq”. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/183 "2005-10-25T23:53:12Z")
From the [rumor mill](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html): > [@](#): > > 1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end. > > 2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters. > > 3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and “filed” tomorrow. > > 4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday. What will it mean if the indictments are “sealed”? I’ve only found [this](http://www.law.ku.edu/research/frcriIII.htm): > [@](#): > > (4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons. So, we (the Teeming Millions) wouldn’t know who or how many people were indicted? How long might this situation last? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/184 "2005-10-26T00:14:37Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > From the [rumor mill](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html): > What will it mean if the indictments are “sealed”? I’ve only found [this](http://www.law.ku.edu/research/frcriIII.htm):So, we (the Teeming Millions) wouldn’t know who or how many people were indicted? How long might this situation last? Clemons (i.e. your rumor mill) also said Fitzgerald’s holding a press conference Thursday. I expect we’ll find out any names then that haven’t already been revealed. Josh Marshall, who’s a pretty reliable journalist, [says](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006831.php): > [@](#): > > Steve Clemons reports that the target letters have been received, indictments to be filed tomorrow, press conference Thursday. Steve sources his post to an “uber-insider source”, and I’d call it quite a fair description. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/185 "2005-10-26T01:01:03Z")
[An Odd Bit:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051026/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc) > [@](#): > > Marc Lefkowitz, who lives across the street from CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, said he was questioned by two > FBI agents **on Monday night** about whether he knew about Plame’s work at the CIA before her identity as a covert operative was leaked to the press in 2003. Lefkowitz told the agents he didn’t know. Why’d they wait til now to ask that? Lawyers “involved with the case” suggest this might imply that Fitzgerald will charge administration officials with the leak itself. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/186 "2005-10-26T01:21:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Clemons (i.e. your rumor mill) also said Fitzgerald’s holding a press conference Thursday. > [@Squeegee](#): > > 1. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday. :dubious: FWIW, [this guy](http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5635.html) interprets the story as the indictments being unsealed when Fitz has his press conference. I hope so, it’d be darn frustrating (IMHO for anyone who’s interested in this story, not just folks in the shadenfreude bleachers) for the indictments to remain sealed for a lengthy period ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/187 "2005-10-26T01:41:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s because you made up the parts that I underlined in your post. Those are your guesses, not facts in the case. I didn’t make up anything and I resent that accusation. It was a set of 3 possibilities, clearly flagged as such, and I was pointing out that almost any scenario (order, assumption or just negligence) could put Cheney in legal trouble. You’re right that we don’t know the full story yet, but my point was that almost any full story from this point would be unlikely to get him off the hook. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/188 "2005-10-26T01:42:19Z")
GQ [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6724399#post6724399) on what a “sealed indictment” might mean. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/189 "2005-10-26T02:25:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think the problem that so many on the left are having with this whole thing is that they so badly want this to be a proxy for getting back at Bush for the war in Iraq. I disagree that it’s a proxy. Bush & co. lied about the fact that they had hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The Niger link was a key part of that “evidence.” Despite the fact that they knew that evidence was bogus, they still proceeded to attempt to discredit Joe Wilson for making that fact public. The act in question was clearly an integral part of the web of lies and deceit that led up to the war. ---
**Author:** ![Fearless\_Reader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9fc29f/32.png) [@Fearless\_Reader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fearless_Reader)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/190 "2005-10-26T03:01:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [New evidence suggests Libby learned Wilson’s name from Cheney.](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25leak.html?hp&ex=1130212800&en=ba1361e3bd1bec47&ei=5094&partner=homepage) > > Which doesn’t mean Cheney was involved or is going to be indicted, but it looks to me like Libby could be sunk. He said he got her name from journalists. Cheney would be involved as a co-conspirator if he did not disclose this information to Fitzgerald. We don’t know if he did that. What we do know is that the WH has systematically denied knowing anything about the leak or the leaker(s). Doesn’t bode well for either Cheney or Bush himself. As it stands now, there is a possibility that both Cheney and Bush could be named as co-conspirators for failing to disclose their knowledge of the leak under the Espionage Act. Realistically (if not legally) speaking, does anyone really think that these underlings did this without the blessings of either Cheney or Bush - or both??? That is what defies logic - the people who are still trying to defend their innocence in all this. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/191 "2005-10-26T03:22:49Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > From the [rumor mill](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html): > What will it mean if the indictments are “sealed”? I’ve only found [this](http://www.law.ku.edu/research/frcriIII.htm):So, we (the Teeming Millions) wouldn’t know who or how many people were indicted? How long might this situation last? Are the people indicted informed, before they’re arrested? Can Cheney be taken into custody while in office? If so he could theoretically ascend to the presidency while under arrest; could he then order his own release? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/192 "2005-10-26T03:32:57Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Can Cheney be taken into custody while in office? [Yes.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6700557&postcount=64) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/193 "2005-10-26T04:20:24Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > I didn’t make up anything and I resent that accusation. This entire sentence, actually, is made up-- it is not an established fact in the case: > [@AF](#): > > This giving of information must have been with the order to pass it to the media, the tacit assumption that this would be done or at least gross negligence as to whether it would be done. It’s certainly possible that Cheney ordered the leak, but there is no substantial evidence that he did. Nor is there any need to assume this was “gross negligence”, since it could easily have been part of a casual conversation. We simply don’t know. Hey, you asked for someone to tell you why it wasn’t some kind of a crime, and I told you-- because you are assuming some things happened that we don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/194 "2005-10-26T08:16:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > This entire sentence, actually, is made up-- it is not an established fact in the case My post was a statement of opinion (that almost any combination of unknown facts about the conversation in question, given the facts in hand already, would produce a likely illegal outcome). Feel free to disagree - I acknowledge that my post was strongly worded and that I have no knowledge of whether a crime did actually occur. But this in no way was an attempt to “make up” the facts, just a statement of opinion. You’re accusing me of a lie, in effect, and I resent that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822.md?page=9)