Cheney on the stand? & Not Just To Authenticate Document. (Salon)

[kpete]

Cheney on the stand? Maybe so, and not just to authenticate a document

Patrick Fitzgerald has just filed a new brief in the Scooter Libby case, and the headline news from it is pretty straightforward: The special prosecutor says he may call Dick Cheney to testify at trial in order to authenticate what appear to be the vice president's handwritten notes on Joseph Wilson's June 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. The underlying story is a little more complicated -- and a lot more interesting -- than that.

Fitzgerald put the handwritten notes before the court earlier this month in the course of describing the newspaper articles he intends to use at trial. Libby's legal team responded last week by arguing that the notes couldn't be authenticated without having Cheney testify; that the notes aren't relevant to the case against Libby; and that if they're relevant, then so is a whole lot of other evidence going to the state of mind of everyone else even tangentially related to the Valerie Plame case.

In the reply brief he just filed, Fitzgerald says that Libby has it all wrong. Fitzgerald says he can authenticate the notes by putting Cheney on the stand and asking him if they're his. That's not the only way Fitzgerald could do it; as he notes, the Federal Rules of Evidence would allow him to authenticate Cheney's handwriting through the testimony of just about anyone who's familiar with the way the vice president writes. But in the course of his brief, Fitzgerald makes it clear -- without saying so explicitly -- that he'd like to put Cheney on the stand for another reason: To question him about the conversations he had with Libby about Wilson's column, and in the process to undercut Libby's claim that those conversations didn't involve the identity of Wilson's wife.

As shown in excerpts of grand jury testimony attached to Fitzgerald's brief, Libby has admitted that he talked with Cheney after Wilson's article appeared, and that Cheney said then that he wanted to "get the truth out" about it. Libby has also admitted that his conversations with Cheney immediately after Wilson's article was published touched on all of the topics covered in the handwritten notes -- all except one: While Libby acknowledges that he and Cheney discussed Wilson's wife long before and long after Wilson's op-ed appeared, he says it's the one issue that they didn't discuss in the immediate aftermath of the op-ed.

More:
From the grand jury transcript:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/24/cheney/index.html
http://talkleft.com/fitzmay24.pdf
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_060524_FitzEx.pdf

[Dunvegan]

1. Fitzgerald is walking into the final ring of Hell here...

...call Cheney, and Crashcart's arrogance and hubris will cause him to go nuclear.

Fitz has Great Courage, and considering his Great Purpose, will surely need it.

[Cyrano]

2. Cheney would claim executive privilege and tell Fitz to screw off.

When an impasse like this is reached, it's usually up to the courts to decide what to do. This would end up in the Supreme Court and the majority would find a way to tell Fitzgerald to screw off.

Let's just hope that Cheney, Bush and the rest of this mob will actually leave office on January 20, 2009. If not, they'll have declared martial law and we'll have storm troopers patrolling the streets.

[Sherman A1]

3. Yes,

But Fitzgerald is far from stupid, so one might think he has more of a plan than just the obvious one here.

[Spazito]

11. I agree, if subpoenaed to testify, Cheney will claim privilege

and this will end up in the USSC. While the law, to date, has not recognized the VP having any right to claim privilege and, indeed, from United States v Nixon, even the President's right to claim privilege is limited, the question has never been adjudicated by the USSC. Given that the court is now stacked with believers in unitary government, the VP may well win this one, imo.

A read of the pertinent parts of the United States v Nixon on the question of privilege is, imo, fascinating, especially in light of the current White House and sitting USSC:

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=418&page=683

(scroll down to IV THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, this relates to Nixon's claim but shows even the President's claim to Privilege is limited)

[yellowcanine]

15. Crap, you beat me to U.S. v. Nixon.

I think it kills any chance that Cheney would have. That decision was unanimous. Even the current gang of thieves on the SCOTUS will not reverse a precedent like that.

[yellowcanine]

14. He could and probably will try that. But U.S. v Nixon would be cited

and he probably would lose. In U.S. v Nixon the SCOTUS ruled 8-0 (Rehnquist recused himself - isn't THAT a novel idea?) that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.

[stop the bleeding]

4. Here are all 3 Court Filings from last night - finally together

i would have had all of them last night at 11:30pm, but it was a gosh darn apostrophe that was messing up the links, I have seen 2 of three filings out on the internets(in OP) but here are all three together.

05/24/2006 GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL - 10 pages

05/24/2006 GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL - 4 pages

05/24/2006 Exhibits A - C - 20 pages

of course as always all filings are being stored here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x3589

[DemReadingDU]

7. Thank you, appreciate your dedication!

[kpete]

16. You are a trooper

Thanks for storing these historic docs...

I especially liked those "10 pages"

Peace and have a great day!

[H2O Man]

5. A pot of gold here .....

Thank you for providing these valuable documents to DUers. They are fantastic.

[Spazito]

6. He certainly can 'cut to the chase' in his responses while, at the

same time, throw a potential grenade into the mix. Gotta love the guy.

[kpete]

8. I am gleeful this morning...

[Spazito]

12. LOL, I have to say the smile on my face is more than a bit bigger

today and my fascination with this case continues to grow rather than abate!

[Ezlivin]

9. Mr. Cheney, since we have you on the stand, there's a few questions I'd

like to ask you.

What did you know about the terror attacks of 9/11 and when did you know this?

What was the order you gave on 9/11?

Why didn't you ever convene the Counterterrorism Task Force of which you were the head?

10. interesting to read Libby's replies - he has to keep restating

how if he had heard about Plame before talking to reporters, then he doesn't remember it. The more he says it, the less credible it sounds.

[kpete]

13. The Note has a bunch of shit on Plamegate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238