Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 2/26/2006 1:22:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 1:22:56 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]
Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer
By DOUG THOMPSON
Feb 22, 2006, 07:35


Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago say Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.

Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions.

According to those who have talked with the agents and others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.

We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others say they saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.

"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."

One agent at the scene has been placed on administrative leave and another requested reassignment this week. A memo reportedly written by one agent has been destroyed, sources said Wednesday afternoon.

Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.

If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.

But we will never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.

Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return to the station.

"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.

"We've known these people for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.

Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest employer.

"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.

Secret Service officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."

It's a sure bet that is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then any evidence that shows the Vice President drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.

(Updated at 7:21 p.m. EST to reflect new information)

Comment on this story
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8184.shtml
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:24:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:26:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 1:26:23 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

The site (and the rest of the stories on it) seems very ANTI-Bush, so I suspect total B.S.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:26:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:27:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:28:00 PM EDT
BS, Secret service agents usually do not make comments to anybody.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:28:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
The site (and the rest of the stories on it) seems very ANTI-Bush, so I suspect total B.S.



Probably so. I saw the article on another site that got it from that blog. I didn't spend much time looking at the rest of the blog.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:29:21 PM EDT

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:30:56 PM EDT
That site is definitely Anti Bush.

Typical dem/lib BS.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:33:02 PM EDT
Really...so what if he was snot slinging, falling down, projectile vomiting, howl at the moon drunk? It's still a civil matter as their was no criminal intent! Fucking reporters just keep on trying to make something out of nothing to suit their political agenda. Pathetic asshat loosers!

Incidently, who the hell is 'Capital Hill Blue' and why do they have access to this 'statement' by a secret service agent when the rest of the worlds' media doesn't? Implausible at best.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 1:35:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 3:07:23 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]
Is there not a criminal statute against hunting while intoxicated? I would imagine it would go against whatever hunting licenses are needed--just like a DWI.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 4:37:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigcraig:
BS, Secret service agents usually do not make never make comments to anybody.




Fixed it.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 4:38:27 PM EDT
They'd get disappeared
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 4:56:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
Is there not a criminal statute against hunting while intoxicated? I would imagine it would go against whatever hunting licenses are needed--just like a DWI.



ubermonkey, the lawyer was as much at fault as cheney, in my opinion. Cheney didnt mistake him for an elk....he pepeered him in quail shoot where he didnt realize the 78 yr old lawyer was in the sight picture when he sqeezed the trigger.

Also, you can drive dunk on private property all you want....and, they call them DUI's now....but they don't give DUI's to guys that are 3 sheets into the wind doing donuts in thier own yard at 3:00 am...


You can get hammered and shoot on private property so long as you dont break any laws.



Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:16:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 5:16:48 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

Also, you can drive dunk on private property all you want....but they don't give DUI's to guys that are 3 sheets into the wind doing donuts in thier own yard at 3:00 am...




Drunk driving is illegal regardless of where it takes place. It just has to be within the state's jurisdiction.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:16:21 PM EDT
It doesn't matter anyway. Nothing is going to happen one way or the other.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:24:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

Also, you can drive dunk on private property all you want....but they don't give DUI's to guys that are 3 sheets into the wind doing donuts in thier own yard at 3:00 am...




Drunk driving is illegal regardless of where it takes place. It just has to be within the state's jurisdiction.




Well I would argue that the states jurisdiction doesn't extend to driving in a privately owned CRP field in South Texas, or privately owned deer leases.

If it did, every redneck in Texas would be in jail for mudhoggin their trucks and four wheelers every weekend night.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:26:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

Also, you can drive dunk on private property all you want....but they don't give DUI's to guys that are 3 sheets into the wind doing donuts in thier own yard at 3:00 am...




Drunk driving is illegal regardless of where it takes place. It just has to be within the state's jurisdiction.





Not on private property, sir. One doesn't even have to be a licensed driver on private property nor have tags on their car.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:26:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Originally Posted By HillBillySasquatch:

Also, you can drive dunk on private property all you want....but they don't give DUI's to guys that are 3 sheets into the wind doing donuts in thier own yard at 3:00 am...




Drunk driving is illegal regardless of where it takes place. It just has to be within the state's jurisdiction.




Well I would argue that the states jurisdiction doesn't extend to driving in a privately owned CRP field in South Texas, or privately owned deer leases.

If it did, every redneck in Texas would be in jail for mudhoggin their trucks and four wheelers every weekend night.




Things are always different in practice, but it is illegal to drive while intoxicated on your own property.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:32:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:35:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:38:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:

Things are always different in practice, but it is illegal to drive while intoxicated on your own property.



once again incorrect.

it is perfectly legal here on your own property to be shitfaced drunk, no license and no registration on YOUR property. As soon as you enter public domain it's your ass.



Same in Texas.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:41:35 PM EDT
A real Texan wouldn't post such ridiculous crap.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:46:23 PM EDT

That he was drunk

and



that the agent talked.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:47:00 PM EDT
I did not know that.

So, you can legally drive under the influence on your land, but if you hit and kill someone, you will be charged, and the fact that you were driving under the influence will be presented as the cause of the accident? You will be charged with intoxicated manslaughter? But you will not receive a DWI in addition to the manslaughter charge, because that in itself is not illegal?



Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:48:56 PM EDT
Zarathustra1, what part of Texas are you from?

Have you ever been on a ranch in Texas that you could drive ALL day and never be on the same road twice?

Do you have any concept of how big some of the ranches in Texas are?

This is Texas.......property rights are more important than just about ANYTHING else to most of us and there is no way that the Texas Legislature would pass some shit that made it illegal to drink and drive on your own damned property.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:50:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2006 5:57:58 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]

Originally Posted By krpind:
Zarathustra1, what part of Texas are you from?

Have you ever been on a ranch in Texas that you could drive ALL day and never be on the same road twice?

Do you have any concept of how big some of the ranches in Texas are?

This is Texas.......property rights are more important than just about ANYTHING else to most of us and there is no way that the Texas Legislature would pass some shit that made it illegal to drink and drive on your own damned property.



Ok.

So you would not receive a DWI in addition to the manslaughter charge because you were on your own land?

I am speaking theoretically.

ETA: I'm not saying I feel it should be illegal to drink and drive on your land/ranch--quite the opposite.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:53:30 PM EDT
Given the circumstances I wouldn't be a bit surprised if alcohol was involved.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:56:43 PM EDT
No DWI.

I think the charges would depend on the local DA.

A few months ago a "kid" (A twenty something) was killed in a flatbottom boat that they were riding in dragging it behind a pickup in a pasture.

I sure it was a "hold my beer and watch this" moment.

I don't think anyone was charged.......hell it was an accident. Dumb but still an accident.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:58:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:00:51 PM EDT
of COURSE they were drunk! they were hunting!

It's like going fishing sober.... you just don't do those kinda things!
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:
No DWI.




That's interesting. I didn't know that.

My family on my father's side were all cattle ranchers in New Mexico and Colorado. He was offered a chance to run the ranch in Colorado, but he turned it down. That was the fork in my life between growing up as a country or city boy. He chose the city...

I am familiar with large ranches though.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:03:31 PM EDT
I seiously doubt it --The Secret Service agents are charged with the VP's security and safety --if they saw what the un-named "sources" (more likely the voices in the article writers head)said they could have and WOULD have stopped the activity in question. If even for thier own safety if the VP was drunk and handleing a shotgun irresponsibly one of the agents themselves could have been injured or killed just as easily and I doubt they would have stood by and let that happen. Also the entire group could have been on a helicopter and gone in 30mins if a huge coverup had been ordered. Quite to the contrary Ann Compton(ABC news white house corespondent) was on the air on ABC news the NIGHT IT HAPPENED with a detailed account of the accident HOURS after it happened. The Same ABC news that now claims it "wasnt told", Ann Compton has since forgotten stuff she knew (and broadcasted) at the initial release of the news. Maybe the media should lay off the sause. Or at least dont drink and type Doug.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:04:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Given the circumstances I wouldn't be a bit surprised if alcohol was involved.




I would be awfully suprised if any outfitter or guide service allowed anyone who was impaired to handle a gun.

I go on guided hunts all the time and I have never seen any that had any tolerance for someone who was drunk. Matter of fact, I don't think I have ever been anywhere that the rules about alcohol were not explained BEFORE the hunt.

Quail guides would NEVER allow an intoxicated person to have a gun and risk shooting a $25,000 dog. At least that is my experience.

Top Top