Breaking: Cheney to Be Defense Witness in CIA Case

[npincus]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/19/D8M4471O0.html

Hear ye, hear ye... just posted in LBN:

Vice President Dick Cheney will be called as a defense witness in the CIA leak case, an attorney for Cheney's former chief of staff told a federal judge Tuesday.

"We're calling the vice president," attorney Ted Wells said in court. Wells represents defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is charged with perjury and obstruction.


Early last week, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he did not expect the White House to resist if Cheney or other administration officials are called to testify in Libby's trial, expected to begin in January.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about what he told reporters regarding former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to reporters around the time that her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Well finally we'll have old Dick under oath. Watch your step!

[aquart]

20. Use an asbestos Bible.

Just the touch of Dickie's hand....

[wicket]

2. I'm sure he'll find a way to weasel out of it

n/t

[QuestionAll...]

6. in other breaking news: US carriers positioning in the persian gulf...

around the same time as cheneys fat ass should be in the hotseat.

[bahrbearian]

34. "Sorry Judge I can't Testify , I have a War Room to Run."

"Damn Those Terrorist, I'd really like to do it,but.."

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. I can't wait

to hear Cheney's reaction.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. He'll be a one-answer man on cross examination

"On the advice of my attorney, I plead the 5th"

[QuestionAll...]

7. gosh, is there still a 5th?

didn't Gorge sign that away yet?

[rodeodance]

22. hostile witness?

[treestar]

50. Amen, I predict suddenly the Bill of Rights will be of value

to the neocons, and no longer an "obstacle" in their virtuous attempt to "protect" us.

[H2O Man]

5. Yep.

Another interesting thing was that Mr. Fitzgerald told the Court that he does not intend to appeal the ruling on the standards by which Judge Walton will determine what classified materials will be introduced. Things are moving rapidly now. It does not look good for either Libby or Cheney.

[npincus]

8. paint me a picture...

what is the worst-case-scenario from Cheney's perspective?

Might an impeachable offense be uncovered? Oh, if only B*sh could get sucked into this muck...

:-)

[H2O Man]

14. The first one

would be that he is required to be on the witness stand, rather than merely being deposed & filmed outside of the actual courtroom. My understanding is that he will attempt to be questioned in the more comfortable setting. The Libby defense team is not as likely to oppose that, as Mr. Fitzgerald. At this point, I do not think Judge Walton will allow Cheney to do that.

The scenario then becomes centered on the Team Libby attempt to have the "authority" of the VP saying poor Scooter was too busy saving America to be focused on Wilson & Plame, versus Mr. Fitzgerald asking about more than 50 instances where Cheney and Libby discussed how to deal with the troublesome priest.

[TahitiNut]

33. Being deposed and taped has some risks to Cheney that may be more serious.

Attorneys have FAR greater latitudes in questioning during a deposition than in court, since judicial rulings aren't made in 'real time' ... and let's remember that it was the release of the videotaped deposition of Clinton that did him the greatest harm - along with questions that would've been disallowed in open court.

It's interesting to me that Libby's attorney is the one who's calling on Cheney to testify. Either there's some really sleazy coordination there (of which I have little doubt) or Libby doesn't have a decent defense at all ... or both.

[H2O Man]

37. The Clinton

case involved a civil case, which made for that difference in what questions were allowed. The same rules will apply in the Wilson civil case. Libby's case is criminal, and so there will not be quite the same room for questioning.

[H2O Man]

31. I'll try to link

an updated version of an AP article that has additional information on the chances of Cheney trying to videotape his testimony:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak

[PRETZEL]

16. out of curiosity,

if Cheney becomes a witness for the defense, doesn't that limit Fitz's questions only to what Cheney testifies to?

[H2O Man]

19. In general, yes.

But that is a good thing here. Mr. Fitzgerald is allowed, of course, to show if there are contradictions from VP Cheney's previous statyement(s). Things are very good.

[PRETZEL]

21. would that be from the grand jury or the Bush/Cheney interview

I don't know honestly. Do you think Cheney would willingly set himself up for perjury if that's the case?

[H2O Man]

25. The interview.

I do not believe he would risk his miserable self for Libby.

[PRETZEL]

28. then why be a witness for him?

or is he just on the list just in case they need a home run?

[H2O Man]

29. Libby's lawyers

are calling him as a witness. Their job is to try to help Libby, no matter what impact that may have on Cheney. That doesn't mean they will try to attack him for leaving Scooter out to dry. But they certainly must be aware that Mr. Fitzgerald would have some tough questions for him.

Some time back, I wrote about this investigation being a chess match. I think that remains the best way to view this. Cheney is a player in the White House, but he will be played in court.

[TahitiNut]

35. It's interesting that they don't say whether Cheney is subpoenaed.

For me, that would be an indicator of whether Cheney is regarded as a "hostile witness" giving the Libby defense team more latitude in questioning their own witness.

That's a ponderable that's separate from the strategic objectives and opportunities that Fitzgerald may see in cross-examining Cheney. Clearly, Fitzgerald will be constrained in his cross-examination to only that testimony that Cheney gives ... including anywhere that Cheney, out of arrogance or deceit, step over the line and opens the door for Fitzgerald.

This might make more interesting viewing than the Super Bowl. (Not a very high hurdle, I know.)

[H2O Man]

39. Cheney has made a

prior record that will be available to Mr. Fitxhgerald to catch any inconsistencies. You are correct about the areas available being defined by Team Libby, though in this case, you can be fully confident that Mr. Fitzgerald will be able to address all necessary questions.

[robertpaulsen]

9. I see a contempt of court charge filed against Cheney in 2007.

That, or a "heart attack" to get him off the hot seat. Either way, here's how I feel:

:bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo::bounce::woohoo:

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

10. This is just a plot to get rid of Cheney and appoint McCain as VP.

[Dora]

24. Ha ha.

Ahhhh. Nothing like the smell of failure in the morning. How about a hot cup of that, Mr. Cheney? We know how good you are at failure.

[conscious evolution]

45. It is a plot,but

forget about it being about it getting mccain as vp.
Dems control who will be appointed.
How?Any appointee must recieve advice and CONSENT of Congress.

A Congress we control!!

[nam78_two]

11. K&R.nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. cheney lies. whether under oath or not. he will lie. lying little bastard.

[originalpckelly]

13. Let's *hope* he doesn't lie under oath.

:9

[Gabi Hayes]

17. I absolutely URGE him to do what's natural and try to get away with it.

I sincerely hope he's that stupid

to see him subjected to cross examination by a competent interrogator, instead of the likes of the demparty, or Tim Russert will be a thing of joy

[originalpckelly]

23. I wonder if it will be possible to see the trial...

they are open to the public. That'd be a fun trial to watch if you ask me.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. is Cheney going to be a hostile witness for the defense?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ySHUBzHMSXwJ:www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhostilewitness.html+Hostile+witness&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

The law presumes that the lawyer's own witness is going to cooperate and that the two have probably discussed the witness's testimony ahead of time. To prevent things from getting overly cozy on the witness stand, leading questions are not generally permitted during direct exam. So instead you get somewhat dopey-sounding questions like, "Nurse Smith, on the night of January 16th, while you were making your rounds at the hospital, did you notice anything unusual at around 9:30?" The lawyer already knows the answer, but in the interest of fairness has to pretend she doesn't.

Sometimes, however, a lawyer's witness won't cooperate. Perhaps Nurse Smith saw the defendant give her mother the lethal injection, but is also the defendant's friend. The defense isn't going to call Nurse Smith to the stand, so the prosecution has to. But it becomes obvious to the court, through observation of the witness's conduct on the stand, that Nurse Smith has no intention of cooperating with the prosecution--he's hostile. In another scenario, the state's attorney calls Nurse Smith to testify and discovers, to her dismay, that Nurse Smith has had a change of heart since his pretrial interview and no longer wants to cooperate. Maybe Nurse Smith doesn't like the lawyer's hair or isn't happy about missing work.

This is when the lawyer asks the court to rule that Nurse Smith is a "hostile witness." Why? Because there are exceptions to the rule about not asking leading questions on direct exam--and one of those exceptions is when the witness is hostile.

[TahitiNut]

38. Good question. The refusal to say whether he's under subpoena relates to that.

If he's freely agreeing to testify, it'd be harder for them to claim he (their own witness) is a "hostile witness" ... and that's something I'd think Cheney's own attorney would point out to him. Given Cheney's unbelievable arrogance, however, it's easy to believe he'd only go under subpoena.

[Lochloosa]

18. I stand by my prediction of a Christmas pardon.

Cheney will never testify.

[H2O Man]

27. Anything is possible.

And a rational person has cause to wonder what an irrational president might do. However, the most recent filing by Mr. Fitzgerald indicates that the White House is prepared for the trial. The chances of a pardon before Libby's conviction are remote.

[TahitiNut]

40. You're predicting that Libby will be pardoned?

That would be another 3-5 point drop in Smirk's 'approval' ratings, I think. It'd also add momentum to calls for impeachment, setting a precedent of using Presidential pardon power to cover up criminality in the White House.

I still don't see much to raise my expectations that we're going to see anything approaching justice for this criminal cabal, though. Too little, too late.

[clu]

26. turn up the heat

hehe

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. You may as well call Daffy Duck

for all the truth you'll get out that fat shitbag anyway.

[WiseButAngrySara]

32. He'll perjure himself! Cheney is a liar. ....n/t

[H2O Man]

42. What is interesting

to consider is the chance that he already has, and that it might come out during the trial. Between Libby, Cheney, and Karl Rove, there may be a few surprises.

[jaysunb]

59. I continue to believe Fitzgerld has the goods

on them all, and is just waiting to spring the trap.

[AZBlue]

36. So what??

He'll lie and obfuscate and have fun doing it.

[H2O Man]

41. Impeach Dick Cheney ......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237357,00.html

Sean Penn: Impeach Bush, Cheney

Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn called for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in an impassioned speech Monday night in New York.

Penn was one name on a long list of honorees that included Branford Marsalis, Harvey Keitel and Marcia Gay Harden. He was introduced by PBS' Charlie Rose, who was preceded by Matthew Reeve, the documentary-making eldest son of Christopher Reeve and Gae Exton. ....


Penn spoke in measured tones but was actually quite inflammatory. The combination worked. He also threw a verbal grenade into the crowd when he said: "So look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a , yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a stain on the flag we wave."

[H2O Man]

53. From "The Nation"

"If Cheney's Talking, He Should Talk to Congress" ...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=150127

[bobbolink]

60. Question for you.....

How would this affect bringing to justice the other PNAC clowns?

I find myself having more and more concerns about routing out the whole gang.

Would appreciate your input.

Thanks for the good articles!

:hi:

[bobbolink]

61. Have you read this book?

"THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'" "
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=150127

Those are some powerful recommends! :)

[Missy Vixen]

43. Wheeeee!

My Christmas gift just arrived.

Mr. Cheney, welcome to your worst nightmare.



Julie
still president for life of the PFEB

[H2O Man]

44. It looks to be

a rough January and February in Washington, DC.

[DemReadingDU]

46. WooHoo, Hope C-Span has 24 hour coverage!

Looking forward to watching...
Fitzgerald!
Waxman!
Conyers!
and other investigations!

:woohoo:

[H2O Man]

47. Judge Walton has

said that he intends to make this as public as possible. (grin)

[Disturbed]

48. Cheney has already been interviewed by Fitz.

Regardless if that interview was under Oath or not it can be used to cross exam him. Cheney is is one of the smoothest liars on the planet but Fitz is a brilliant Prosecutor. This will be interesting.

[H2O Man]

51. Cheney is a trained liar.

But he is not a good liar. He's not particularly convincing.

[Catherine Vincent]

49. I've been waiting on this trial for a while now.

I hope this thing doesn't get delayed or there will be hell to pay! Looking forward to more Fitz sightings!

[H2O Man]

52. The thing that was

most likely to cause a delay became a non-issue last week. It was the issue that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering for an appeal. This might have caused some delay. But it is not an issue now. Things are on track, and Libby is going to be convicted on every count.

[Catherine Vincent]

56. Friday, December 22nd is Fitz's birthday.

Maybe he'll give us more good news for a friday news dump.

[H2O Man]

54. There are now 323

media sources reporting on Cheney's stautus as a witness in the trial. The White House does not want this to be a big story in the next few weeks.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

55. K&R

[MasonJar]

57. Do not expect the truth. My daughter, who is an attorney, says

that people lie under oath all the time.

[Catherine Vincent]

58. Of course they do.

But my man Fitz is on the case. He will not be lied to.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

62. Perjury or contempt?

Well, if Cheney lies under oath he can be busted for perjury. Eventually.

If he refuses to testify, he can be held in contempt of court by the judge. And tossed into the slammer.

However, Christie Whitman was held in contempt, in a lawsuit by the Native Americans for her failure, as Sec. of the Interior, to account for and distribute the monies accrued from minerals from Native American lands, estimated to be in the billions of dollars since the 1870s or so, and she was not thrown in jail. I don't know if there is any kind of governmental exemption from that for Cabinet members or not.


There just might be some government lawyers salivating at the prospect of cross-examination. You can lead on cross, and there will be many "doors opened" (subjects talked about) on direct examination. Slobbering away.......get out the popcorn.