# FitzGerald might not have indicted Cheney, but Henry Waxman . . .

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fitzgerald-might-not-have-indicted-cheney-but-henry-waxman/395428>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 10, 2007, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fitzgerald-might-not-have-indicted-cheney-but-henry-waxman/395428 "2007-03-10T23:52:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fitzgerald-might-not-have-indicted-cheney-but-henry-waxman/395428/1 "2007-03-10T23:52:05Z")

</div>

. . . [is having Valerie Plame testify before his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 3/16/07.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030802030.html) He has also asked FitzGerald to appear. John Nichols of _The Nation_ writes on the story [here.](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=173342)

Will Cheney himself be called to testify?

Does this investigation have legs?

Bear in mind this is a line Waxman can pursue **even** if Bush pardons Libby; the evidence presented at that trial will remain a matter of public record.