Hot off the wires from the AP:
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….
Cheney, who would be the trial's most anticipated witness, has said he may be called to testify. If so, prosecutors could ask how the White House responded to Wilson's criticisms. Cheney was upset by Wilson's comments, Fitzgerald has said, and told Libby that Plame worked for the CIA.
That conversation is a key to Fitzgerald's perjury case. Libby testified that he learned about Plame's job from a reporter.
Cheney could also help prosecutors undermine Libby's defense that he was so preoccupied with national security matters, he forgot details about the less-important Plame issue. Prosecutors argue that Plame was a key concern of the vice president, and thus would have been important to Libby.
Here are the things I'm wondering: (1) Is Cheney going to be called as a regular defense witness, or will they be calling him as a hostile witness to the defense?
(2) If Team Libby calls Cheney as a defense witness, this means that Patrick Fitzgerald and his team get to cross-examine Cheney on the stand. (Yes, I am running through C/E scenarios in my mind, and they are all quite interesting.)
(3) Beyond the annotated NYTimes Wilson op-ed piece, how many other things can you think of that Cheney will be able to help identify and elaborate on as evidence? Libby's detailed notebook of oppo on Joe Wilson? Notes from the WHIG meetings? Libby's calendar?
(4) How many questions can you think of regarding the plane ride on AFII?
And it just keeps going and going…is it January yet?
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
FITZ!!!!
Stand back! He’s ready to shoot! [running away]
Quick enough?
I’ll say!
Your’e too good to us Redd.
Cheney testimony brought to you by…
BANG-BANG!™
“The Sweetest Li’l Automatic In The World”™
Thanks Christy….
June 2004… Fitzy interviews Cheney (not under
oath, wonder why?)
Jack
In other news, Wall St reports that popcorn futures have gone through the roof…
Darth witness.
The official pool on how many minutes into cross Cheney invokes the Fifth starts NOW:
20 minutes.
He will admit that he told Senator Leahy
to fuck off…
Jack
Darth under oath? Will we really see that day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNEmDJZAu2Y
buckshot anyone?
For those of us not in the know when it comes to legal processes, is it possible this is another Libby defense ploy to throw a spanner in the works? Since the graymail gambit failed, they must be searching for any other way to derail Fitz’s prosecution.
It seems to me adding Dead-Eye Dick to the witness list and then making motions for all kinds of sealed testimony, privilege and whatnot it could keep the trial on the slow track. Perhaps the ultimate goal coud be to muck things up for two years so an outgoing Boy King can issue a pardon and make it all go away.
Schadenfreude emergency!!!!!!!!!!!1
ooooh – now that’s interesting!
If he’s just a regular defense witness – I could see a non-ending string of “Objection, You Honor, outside the scope of direct examination”’s being upheld.
But if he’s a ‘hostile’ witness….
lemme think about that one for a sec….
Oh WOW. This is so interesting… I saw it at RAW story and ran over here!
Yeah Christy, can’t wait for your continued analysis!
Hugs and happy holidays to you and Mr Reddhedd and the peanut!
Cheney’s got a glum.
Joseph Nobles @ 8
Mine is 1 minute….. “do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you God?”
My guess is that Libby’s team will call him as a hostile witness, and come up with a long list of highly classified questions to ask the Veep. Cheney’s lawyers will argue national security, executive privilege, the works, and the thing will drag out in appeals courts until the end of Bush’s term in office; this is exactly what Libby’s people are counting on. It’s just graymail again.
Perhaps Fitzgerald’s people can get around this by arguing for very strict limits on what Cheney will be asked. While many of us would love to ask Cheney all kinds of zingers under oath, this is a perjury trial, so the only relevant questions pertain to what Libby said to the grand jury, whether it was true or not, and whether any discussions between Cheney and Libby make it obvious that Libby knew he was lying.
Man they did a hell of a job getting this story out of the election cycle. That’s all that business in August was about. Too many people fell for it.
Will be digging into this more thoroughly as I get information, gang. But I just knew everyone would want a fix on the news at the start… *G* (Do I know you guys or what?)
Could it be the defense’s way of calling for a pardon?
> The official pool on how many minutes into
> cross Cheney invokes the Fifth starts NOW:
I think you vastly underestimate the depth and strength of the Cheney/Yoo/Libby/Bolton view of the world and of “Executive Privilage”. Assuming that Cheney agrees to show up, which is not a given, he is going to sit on that stand, refuse to answer questions, state that his refusal is a matter of National Security under the Unitary Executive Privilage, and dare anyone to do anything about it.
Cranky
Christy Hardin Smith @ 19
We’re such junkies… *g*
I hope Fitzgerald hits Big Time with a surge of 20,000-30,000 cross-examination questions.
Christy -
Two ideas come to mind at present:
How does “Libby’s detailed notebook of oppo on Joe Wilson” help Scooter with what is left of his faulty memory defense? I’m pleased that you mentioned this detailed notebook because it has not been mentioned in weeks.
Please elaborate on calling witnesses hostile to the defense.
Redshift gets zed redshifted.
and a second on FITZ!!
and like all analysis, the recent thought that this was not possible, is now possible, though we should all remember that when considering the future reality speaks best…
although with its liberal bias.
I sure hope Fitz thinks once in a while of Thomas Paine. (Who by the way, when he first arrived as the guest of Franklin, was advised to study the Mohawk language, so he could begin to understand freedom firsthand from the free people with the oldest working democracy in the world, which he did. and Franklin took him to treaty councils with the Rotinosonee (Haudenosaunee, or Iroqois Confederacy, where he experienced the wise councils advising the colonists to band together and survive eons like the then Five Nations.)
BTW, the concept of impeachment came directly from the Great Law of Peace, the Iroquois constitution… except that impeachement, the removal of the sacred antlers, was voted by the women, and the warriors were ordered by the woman to make the move after two warnings went unheeded.
Go Fitz!
Just reading about the “dark one” with a photo brings forth the sound of flies buzzing and tortured screams from the depths of hidden prison cells. *shivering in pure disgust*
what puppethead said . . .
Could this be a Libby gambit — to force Bush to pardon him now, to protect
Bush’s AssNational Security?the strategy will be for Cheney to answer his name and a few other things that have nothing to do with the case
executive privilege for everything else and the case is dismissed
that’s IF he accepts the subpeona, I expect him to claim he is too busy to appear
Christy:
If Cheney is going to testify, do you think that Fitz is going to want to take his sworn deposition in order to facilitate cross-examination? Or as a federal employee, is Fitz going to have to defer to the vice president’s wishes on that?
(Bush and Cheney were not under oath when they met with the prosecutors).
Cranky Observer @ 22
Mebbe.
Even though this may play, It keeps the f*cker
busy and interferes with his imperial plans for invading Iran. Oh, BTW, Who’s turn is it to watch the Chimp then?
watertiger gets the first photo op
Was it one of Fitz’s henchmen who left the deer by the side of the road, knowing he couldn’t get it delivered to cheney’s bed?
Crazy Horse @ 26
Fascinating.
The troll is still kicking shit around downstairs….
punaise @
16
Ho, ho, ho! Punaise you crack me up!
Left you a comment in EPU-ville last thread.
If Team Libby calls Cheney as a defense witness, this means that Patrick Fitzgerald and his team get to cross-examine Cheney on the stand.
Ooh that is a scary thought, actually going one on one with Darth Cheney.
I love the idea of X-examination of the man. I’m just glad it’s not me doing it.
maybe Fitz just keeps his powder dry?
Asks some basically inconsequential questions as to what came up on direct?
After all, he’s already got him on tape (and you can’t lie to a fed official) as well as god-knows-how-many other witnesses who’ve already testified under oath.
I still think it speaks more to me that Cheney is *not* on Fitz’ witness list than it does that the defense is bringing him in.
Cranky Observer @ 22
Reposting one of my comments from the prior thread in response:
Can’t believe that one didn’t bust the margins.
perris @ 29
I do not think that it will work that way. Please refer to my 12:36 pm comment in this thread for my reasoning.
Crazy Horse @
26
Thanks so much for sharing such thrilling history. Makes my day!
newspaperbrat @ 36
hi… saw it and replied
Christy Hardin Smith @
20
S.W.E.E.T!!
All the pups jumped at once and almost overturned the toobes. Thaz raw power!
Pardon our dust, troll downstairs…. *g*
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 39
you are under the impression the vp wouldn’t get the supreme court to revisit the issue, which he will.
the supreme court, alito, roberts are beholdent to cheney and unless they intend on throwing him under the buss, the gets whatever he wants
Get the latest CIA leak news, legal documents and other essential materials at the:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
cathy @ 21
To answer your question, I think not. Please recall what has been stated in other threads on the subject of loyalty: to paraphrase what others have said, loyalty to the administration is a one-way street.
Deadeye in the crosshairs at last! Ohboyohboyohboy!
And just yesterday we were reading how it was unlikely, due to the absence of special security requirements. How to explain this?
Gonna RTF thread now.
Question 1
Why would you expose and destroy the number one CIA Covert Operation in the Middle East (Plames Brewster Jennings Front Company) that specialized in tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction Acquisition and Development?
Are you aware Darth Cheney that your actions caused this operation to cease and that many covert agents died as a result and that also as a result our intelligence on Iranian WMD acquisition and development was destroyed?
katymine @
35
should we take turns trotting back to tickle his nose? I tried to spray some OhDoh’TRoNo around to cover the trail…
He’ll lie. Why change?
Stephan Parrish,
Re your 12:36, IMHO you are still misundersestimating Cheney and his gang. They are not going to give in and are not going to back down. Cheney is going to look the attorneys (for both sides) and the judge in the eye, tell them “Cheney you”, and refuse to answer. (Again this is assuming he even shows up). Not take the 5th, just flat out refuse to answer. If the Court tries to take him into custody for contempt he will order the Secret Service to escort him out and to the White House.
Cranky
Eureka Springs, AR @ 34
Seconded. Any refs for the interested?
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 41
Excellent argument. But I think that Cheney is so incredibly arrogant – he’ll just show up anyway. And I *do* think that he’s gonna be well-prepared for every single questions which the defense is gonna throw his way.
All that Cheney can offer (relevantly), by way of defense to Scoots, is that, yes indeed, he was one very busy man.
Someone may have mention this but we shouldn’t forget that G.H.W.B pardoned Casper Weinberger on Christmas Eve. (it was during Bush’s last year in office though).
Adie @ 50
No need.
There is a huge smoking crater back there.
Found this on teh google.
he Constitution of the Iroquois Nations
The US constitution owes much to the Iroquois Confederacy. Franklin went to council meetings for several decades before the Articles of Confederation were drafted, directly after a council with Rotinnosonee chiefs.
franklin was particularly enomored of the Iroquois having two councils, the Younger Brothers and the Elder Brothers. New discussion went to the Younger Brothers, two of the Five Nations, and if they agreed, the question was sent to the Older Brothers. If both (long)houses agreed, it was sent to the Firekeepers (Onondaga) to be implemented.
The separate council of elder women monitored the process (even to the point of being allowed to whisper in the councilors ears when necessary.) Impeachment came when they were outraged enough to call for it, after the two warning steps.
Franklin spent several decades monitoring the councils of the confederacy, eventually realizing that this system, superimposed on what he knew from Britain, became the Articles of Confederation.
contrast that with yesterday’s report that just before the war, Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite, asking, “I thought they were Muslims?”
heh.
Wonder how/if the shift of power in the Senate and House caused this to come about?
The Iran War will begin before the trial does. Cheney will be too busy with his sock puppet to make it to the courthouse.
OT.
Raw Story just auto refreshed, I see my neighbor to the north is erupting a teeny bit.
Good point about the Executive Privilege recourse.
Could this case be the way that executive privilege is examined by the Supremes once and for all?
jayt @ 54
cheney has already told us he’s refusing subpeonas from congress, there is no reason what so ever to believe he’s going to appear
if he appears, he is not going to be well prepared, he’s going to invoke executive priveledge, he will take it to the supreme court, they will back him up
if he does field questions, he is a moron and the fitz will easily slip him up, he has no self control, he even told a senator to go fuck himself, he choked under pressure and had to dissapear when he shot someone in the face
he is NOT the intellect everyone thinks he is
and he will not field questions
I can’t believe the defense would seriously want Cheney to testify, even to buttress a greymail strategy or a “Libby forgot/never knew” approach.
Cheney’s approval rating hovers somewhere between 10 and -50. Having him actually appear on stand and do so much as put his sulphurous hand on a Bible and raise his right arm would effectively prejudice a jury. How could this help the defense, Christy? Or is the plan for him to cite executive privilege, not show up, and blow the prosecution’s case that way?
Bustednuckles @ 61
from that same Raw Story front page, a picture of Fitz cross-examing Cheney, in disguise
perris @ 45
Please look very carefully at United States v. Nixon, in which the Supreme Court held in 1974 that executive privilege could not prevent the disclosure of materials needed for a criminal prosecution. (My emphasis)
I do not think that Chief Justice Roberts and other Supreme Court justices, who, if I am not mistaken, appear in varying degrees to support the concept of stare decisis, would vote to overturn the precedent to which I referred above.
Bustednuckles @
56
Oh my. I thought maybe we were talking about the Canadian dude. So I went back to check my back.
Jesus, Ivor, have you now met Ms. Smith?
ah–didn’t seen the perris-Parrish thread @29. Still curious on the exec-priv impact, tho.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 66
I am saying they will, they adhere to the principles of the unitary executive
alito definately, robers, there is hope
MarcLord at 64 — I’m a little uncertain why they would want Cheney as well, other than perhaps they are considering NOT having Scooter tetify if Fitz gets the G/J testimony in as evidence. It might put Libby in a bad position of having to admit on the stand that he lied under oath to the G/J on a point or two — and Cheney may be a way of end-running that problem and yet still getting in some evidence that they need to raise reasonable doubt. I can think of several other reasons — but man, opening that door to Fitz doing cross-examination, with a man like Dick Cheney whose ego is matched by his temperamental instances of popping off at inopportune times (”Go fuck yourself, Leahy” comes to mind…) — not certain I’d want to risk having my defense strategy rest on Cheney’s ability to stand up under very deliberate, probing scrutiny in a fast-paced cross-exam.
Especially considering what Fitz was able to do with a very experienced expert witness on memory. Remember that one? *G*
The smoke cleared long enough for another to join.
Eureka Springs, AR @
7
There you are ESR and oh so funny!
Finally saw your late night query about the Pelosi campaign gear I had referenced in a comment. Found great & affordable Pelosi for President 2007 stuff at cafepress.com. Its been too cold for T-shirts so I opted for the long-sleeve pullover. My first experience with cafepress and quite positive…and fast delivery. ;~D
jayt @
67
at the risk of busting margins & getting smacked on the nose again, please, someone, what’s an ip ban? *whimper*
Christy,
Great take down of troll.
You must have two monitors to read both threads at once.
routine zig maintenance
Permanent banning from commenting.
Bustednuckles @ 76
we can ban your very connection from commenting, problem would be you could comment from another connection
Adie at 73 — we have the ability to block an IP — for stuff like porn spammers and the like. (Nothing like repeat “XXX Granny” spam to muck up your comments threads. Blergh. And yes, I kid you not…) Anyway, we try to be very, very careful and not do that — I think perris (it was perris on that one, wasn’t it?) was being snarky.
My geuss:
He’s going to becoming ill. Unable to appear.
The MSM will have a wet dream over the fact that the vp is hospitalized. If Fitz pushes for ‘bedside’ testimony it will make him appear callous.
(And I want the 2 minute square in ‘plead the 5th pool.’)
Christy, left you a “Thanks” downstairs . . .
no-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks punaise
thanks Bustednuckles
thanks Ms. ReddHedd.
I be good now. Promise! *sulking on silk pillow*
Hey Dick, is that finger loaded? Got to be careful. You, firearms and beer do not mix!
As for executive privilege, hard to say, it clearly stops civil suits but as Nixon learned, its iffy on governmental malfeasance.
will the transcript of Cheney’s testimony be posted on PACERmaker?
Cranky Observer @ 22
I think you and puppethead are on to something.
I also think maybe the AP got it a little bit wrong
Unless they are referring to something else, that’s not what Fitz’s status report filing said. It said he did not anticipate any witness asserting a privledge in response to anything the Government planned on doing.
He didn’t say anything about things the deense was planning that they had not yet notified the prosecution of.
Bustednuckles @ 61
VolcanoCam: http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/
Question #1
Your honor, I would ask the witness to hold this mirror in front of his face that the court can determine if he is capable of casting a reflection.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 70
Hoist on her own petard, if I . . .[pause for ironic effect] . . . recall correctly.
If Cheney’s on the stand, the federal court system could really make a mint if they put Fitz’s cross-examination on pay-per-view.
Fitzgerald has been very smart about limiting the scope of his charges against Libby. I’m looking forward to his questioning of Cheney about the annotated NYT article. I believe that Cheney is the genesis of Valerie Plame’s outing. Fitzgerald can establish that with a few well-chosen questions. Refusing to answer will be worse than answering them.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 78
Christy, XXX Granny? Sounds interesting. Please forward a few of those my way for the weekend. Might be just the thing to spark extracurricular activities with my SO.
Thanks Lou.
MarcLord @ 68
My understanding is that all issues as to what is, or what is not, too classified to be spoken about, has been decided by Judge Walton.
Any defense attempts, notwithstaning the pasty weight of the V.P. in the witness chair, to re-litigate those matters, should be dealt with fairly quickly and easily by Judge Walton.
I still think that all Dead-Eye can add is that Scoots did indeed have a lot of heavy stuff on his mind.
MarcLord @ 64
It could be a last ditch greymail if Cheney either refuses to appear or appears and won’t answer questions. I could POSSIBLY see a mistrial there.
If Libby is throwing the hail mary pass here, if his defense, like the defense in the illegal arms dealing case that was the hint of Iran COntra, that his actions were “authorized”.
Don’t forget, they have already laid the grondwork for a claim that his release of the NIE was not disclosure of classified material because Cheney authorized it
Ya know? –maybe that’s all their calling Cheney for, in which case he might just show up and answer those very few questions. It would not leave a wide door for x-exam
Peterr @ 80
I was going to chime in about how Christy’s response(s) went beyond mere troll-squleching, but you said it better, in a different way.
Got this from a commenter somewhere else (alas, I don’t remember where) and it’s worth repeating:
Fitzmas Time is here, by golly! Catalogue the White House follies!
Frog march Rove and make me jolly! Jail them all and don’t say “when!”
Fill the jails with hacks and traitors! Prison for the instigators!
Punish Plame and Wilson haters! Brother! Here we go again!
At Fitzmas time you can’t get sore! He just digs in and finds out more!
The prosecutor we adore will find out if Cheney is at the core!
The righties sparing no expense’ll find some journalist utensil
Who, in making Rove’s defense’ll give Fitz what he needs… How nice!
If someone lies in that grand jury, Fitz will find out in a hurry
Causing Cheney’s hacks to scurry back with statements more precise!
Hark when Scooter Libby sings! Copping to such scand’lous things!
Fox News is spinning daily ’cause they’re all in Bush’s pay!
Judy Miller must be high! Her sob story we don’t buy!
So, let the raucous sleigh bells jingle! Fitz is playing our Kris Kringle!
Dropping indictments on traitors who lie!
They’d best tell the truth when he… stops… by!
CHS 78
thanks. lots to learn ’bout ’snark.
if perris says sorry, i’ll smack ma’ own stoopid nose for y’ll, & stop bein’ sa’ dang gullibubble around here. ;->
Peterr @ 1:09 pm -
Hoist on whose petard? *g*
Its impact on the federal deficit would likely be immaterial *g*
looseheadprop @ 92
how could a vp “authorize” lying to the gj? or are you suggesting something else?
newspaperbrat @ 72
Thank you, Definately back in long-sleeves today! Will check out the cafe soon.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 66
Sorry to disagree, but it was a nroower holding than that. They held that Executive Privledge unrelated to military or state dept stuff, was not absolute. That you had to have a specific reason why it was in the national interest to uphold the privledge of non-national security material.
The decision implies a balancing test might be applied in future and specifically carves out a seeming absolute privledge for national security material
jayt @ 91
Including the copious notes that Scooter kept?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 70
Could it be that they want him just on the very limited issue of the super secret instant declassififaction of the NIE just in time for Scooter to leak it to Judy Miller?
Not much Cross exam available on other issues and it removes one of the motives to lie. one of the BIG motives to lie
Not wanting to interrupt the legal eagle thread, here’s last thoughts on the Native roots of amurkan democracy side discussion:
As an elder, I leave the refs to those briliant in net jockeying (though i had my first email address in 1984, and wasn’t a member of a university or defense dept agency.)
but i suggest googling “Great Law of Peace” iroquois confederacy, or “Jake Thomas.” or “John Mohawk” or Akwesasnee Notes or Deganawida or “HIawatha Iroquois” as Hiawatha will get you too much about the Hiawatha trail.
Grandfather Jake could read and comment on the Great Law in several native languages, but also English and French. I was present at the last reading of the Great Law in english (and Mohawk), where we kept the sacred fire burning in the rain for 9 days. He passed away a few years ago, and i’m so digitalglad that there were videos made, and honored to have been there.
Kewl annecdote: during a break, he ambled up to me to bum a cig, and when he was nearly finished, he asked me if i was Oren Lyons son. Being white, i wasn’t, but as Oren Lyons is a great Onondaga Firekeeper from the US side of the Iroquois split, i was honored.
When i told Oren later about the old wise chief’s question, he told me he wondered about it too when we first met!
so let’s get back to impeachment, and let the women lead, as in FireDogLake.
Stephen Parrish, CPA says
December 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm*
Including the copious notes that Scooter kept?
Especially those. If they can be translated (I still cannot believe that they are allowing Scoots to translate his own notes) AArrgghhhhh!
May I just say, quickly and quietly, that I’m no Reggie Walton fan?
The reported decision by the Libby defense to call Cheney as a witness could be their way of signaling the White House that Libby prefers the presidential pardon to come before Christmas rather than after.
A presidential pardon would wreck any pundit’s lingering fantasy of there being bipartisanship with the 110th Congress, but the sooner we all get reality-based the better off we all will be.
Cross-examining someone who’s stonewalling is actually pretty easy. David Boies did it to Bill Gates in the Microsoft trial: Upon realizing that Gates was going to answer every question with “I don’t know,” Boies began crafting more and more telling questions that he knew would elicit that answer after consideration, forcing Gates to say “I don’t know” over and over again. At one point, it took Gates over 20 minutes to finally answer “I don’t know.” The judge dismissed his testimony as unreliable and seriously considered taking Gates down for perjury.
The best thing that could happen is Cheney believing that he could lie or bluff his way through cross-examination with someone as careful as Fitzgerald. I think it’s more likely that he’ll stall and stonewall so as not to give Fitz any handholds; but as Gates learned, that’s not a foolproof strategy.
LHP at 101 — But I thought we already had some sort of tacit agreement on the NIE issue — that Fitz was not going to contest that Scooter had been told to leak the information and that he had approval — or thought he did — from above to do so.
If so, that’s an awfully risky reason to put Shooter-Off-At-The-Mouth on the stand to verify something they need not necessarily verify.
Were this in some other parts of the world, I would assume that Cheney had made a deer sacrifice to the hunting gods in the hopes that he will not be felled himself.
selise @ 97
I actually wasn’t thinking of authorizing lying to the GJ, but now that you mention it, could be.
Back in the 80’s, Adnan Kshoggi and a retied Isreali general (why can’t I remeber this guy’s name?) were indicted for violating a US ban on selling arms to Iran. The Isreali General claimed that he had been in meetings with Poppy Bush (then VP, former CIA Director) and that he (the Isreali general) had been “authorized” by Bush to sell the weapons to Iran.
In fact the weapons, in some cases turned uot to be US weapons. They were being “laundered” through a couple of front companies and had false information about who the end purchaser was supposed to be. in at least one chain of invoices, IIRC, the end recipent of the arms was supposed to be Isreal.
The fact that an former Isrealii General was part of the transaction helped to disguise the fact that the arms were, infact, going to Iran.
The general wanted to call Poppy Bush to the stand so that he could be confronted about having “authorized” the violation of US law.
At the time, the AUSA prosecutiong the case thought it was greymail. And grandstanding–trying to capture press attention with a bright shiny VP.
She litigated the shit out of resisting the defense attempt to compel Poppy to testify. She had no idea that there might be any truth to these claims. She won. Poppy never got called to the stand. If memeory serves, the subpeona was quashed.
This particular defense is well known to the Bushies.
Seems to me that once Fitz got involved, this whole thing became a battle between Rove and Cheney to see who could offer each other’s scalp up to Fitz in the most enticing way.
It was a battle that Rove was predestined to win, both because he testified almost immediately and because he has more latitude to deal than does Cheney.
Here’s why: Rove knows that Fitz wants high-value targets. Rove can offer up Cheney and his staff to Fitz. By contrast, Cheney can only try to offer up Rove or Bush.
When he offered up Rove to Fitz, Cheney hoped that his dirt on Rove is better than Rove’s dirt on him — a hope that appears not to have panned out. So the only other scalp Cheney can offer up to save his own — the only scalp worth more to Fitz than Cheney’s own — is Bush’s scalp. And that’s simply not going to happen. “Horse’s head in the bed” doesn’t come close to the GOP’s reaction, should Cheney try that.
Crazy Horse @ 102
Crazyhorse
Thank you. I never knew any of that. It would be nice to collect it all up into a proper post. It is a serious topic in it’s own right
Fitz! Oh, happy day.
OT, Crazy Horse @ 102– how very strange; I was just reading about John Mohawk’s passing on Democracy Now– sad.
http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..19/1433248
great to see all the legal minds back in the saddle here.
Phoenix Woman @ 109
cheney is not above giving anyone but his daughter up
bush is definately on the table if cheney thinks he us culpable
I don’t think he believes he can be called, I still believe he’s refusing the subpeona
Christy Hardin Smith @ 106
I always took that to mean that Fitz was offering to do this to deprive Scooter of the drama and theatrics AND BRIGHT SHINY OBJECT of the live testimony.
Don’t forget, Pat also offered to stipulate to the mememory defense, but fought pretty hard to keep the BRIGHT SHINY DISTRCTING expert off the stand at trial.
LHP at 114 — Hmmm…yes, I can see that, too. Dick’s forehead is an awfully bright, shiny object. (Perhaps that was part of the problems for his pal Mr. Birdshot In The Face?)
(And before I start getting “mean to bald people” e-mails, Yul Brenner was one of the hottest men on earth. So there.)
new thread
I fear that Cheney will be instrumental in helping Scooter avoid justice. Heaven only knows what legal rabbits he will seek to pull out of his hat, arse, and other parts I’d rather not see.
Nevertheless, even if Deadeye avoids the slammer, the American public will still read the following headline: “Vice President called as witness in CRIMINAL trial.”
It’s a criminal trial, is it not?
Isn’t this the first time a VP has been a witness at a criminal trial…?!
Should be entertaining to see how Faux and Tony Snow spin THAT little information nugget.
Phoenix Woman @ 109
Jeez, and I thought I was cycnical about this stuff.
Fresh thready goodness from scarecrow up top, gang. :)
Gee, I can only imagine about 500,000 reasons to suspect Cheney.
But what the heck do I know?
Katymine
I saw you comment on the previous thread.
I think Team Libby announcing TODAY that it will call Cheney PROVED MY POINT.
By saying he had no security issues, and that he did not anticipate asking any questions that might trigger a privledge problem, Fitz telegraphed to Libby that he was not planning on calling Cheney.
So, now Libby has decided to call Cheney himself.
It’’s perfectly consistant. In fact, the fact that the decision to do so is announced the day after we discuss this observation might create the impression that ole’ Ted Wells is lurking on this site.
But I’m sure they figured it out for themselves before we pointed the way.
Just in case though
Hi Ted! (waving)
If I’m on trial and call as a defense witness someone who says nothing but “I don’t know” or “5th Amendment” or “executive privilege” isn’t the best I can do it not to harm my own defense? I haven’t helped it.
No. I think Cheney is going to go up there and tell obvious lies, defying the Congress to impeach him for perjury.
Stuart Eugene Thiel @ 122
cheney is not on trial, nor his company, libby is.
if libby isn’t able to present a defense due to national security issues his case is thrown out.
cheney refusing questions libby is entitled to is where this is going
Executive Privilege? He’ll just say he can’t recall exactly. Worked in Iran-Contra, and there’s no appealable issue.
looseheadprop @
92
I think you’re right on that, to a large degree. They’re really worried about the NIE thing. So the easiest way to prove that Libby was authorized by Dick is to have Dick say so (and that’s what they were trying to get from Fitz back in May, anyway, Cheney’s testimony).
But I think they may be doing two other things. First, Libby’s “dot” presentation is really an attempt to prove how important he is. Calling Cheney will only do so further. Libby’s team will ask jurors what they think of Cheney. And Fitz prevented Libby from telling who he was speaking to at NSC meetings, beyond Dick. So they clearly want to bring DIck for prestige (apparently they haven’t see his approval numbers).
And finally, I think they may be laying groundwork for the civil case. By getting Dick up there to say he ordered Libby to do everything, it makes it harder for the Wilsons to argue he was doing something outside of his job. Then they can pardon him just after Dick testifies…
I’m having images of Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” :)
Cheney is such an arrogant man, he’ll get up there and lie and Fitz will drive a truck through all the doors Dick opens :)
looseheadprop @
114
Fitz was happy to cede a very narrow issue: that when Libby leaked the NIE on July 8, he was authorized to do so. But he never ceded that Libby was authorized to leak it on June 27 to Woodward or July 2 to Sanger.
That puts Fitz and Libby in a duel there–Libby would like to call Woodward, because it gets him to Armitage, but if he does he risks admitting that he didn’t know whether he was authorized to leak on June 27 (which is what his GJ testimony says). Which in turn makes his July 8 NIE story REALLY suspicious (why would you get once-in-a-lifetime authorization to leak to Judy (particularly to Judy, since she is the leak recipient of choice anyway), when you leaked to Woodward without even knowing whether you were authorized or not.
But there’s also the issue–which Fitz has made very clear in his recent filings–that Libby said he was only directed to leak the NIE, but that he leaked Plame’s identity too (Fitzgerald has effectively said–and Murray has confirmed–that they think he was authorized to leak Plame’s ID, too). I don’t know if Fitzgerald wants to make the arugment all the way–that Cheney told him to leak Plame, or at least that his arguments about Sanger and Woodward make no sense with his claims about the July leak to Judy–but having Cheney on the stand will help Libby mightily (maybe) get out of a tight spot on the NIE leak.
Sharoney @94
Thank you for the very pleasant surprise. I wrote Fitzmas Time for Salon’s Table Talk a little over a year ago.
perris @
113
Oh, Cheney would offer to dig up his great-grandmother’s corpse if he thought it would save his own skin. But he has got to be aware of just how many loony tunes there are among what’s left of the GOP base. I can easily see Z-list conblogger looking to use Cheney for target practice, God forbid.
Cranky Observer @ 22
I doubt we’ll see Cheney on the stand but if we do and he refuses to answer questions for reasonons other than the fifth amendment, I hope Walton tosses his fat ass in jail for contempt.
If he does make it to the stand, I hope someone has told Cheney that cursing in court is usually considered inappropriate.
Judge: Mr. Vice President, would you place your right hand on the bible and take the oath.
Cheney places hand on Bible.
Suddenly steam starts emitting from the Bible and there are sparks and a fire starts, then the Bible just explodes in a ball of flames.
The Dark Overlord has arrived.
———
Uh, Cheney will probably testify and protect Libby a bit, but also add a lot of “I don’t recall.”s and the like.
When is this shindig by the way?
Actually, I think that there will be no trial of Scooter or anyone connected to Bush. There will, however, be a long list of Presidential Pardons. At least we can hope that Bush gets writers cramp.
I tend to think Libby/Cheney/Bush already have a coordinated, cooperative strategy.
But if I didn’t, and I was representing Libby and a bit concerned he might be out of the strategy loop, calling Cheney does something that nothing else cand do.
Cheney is the only person who can walk the authorization to cherrypick and leak-to-mislead right back to Bush. Cheney on the stand pretty much opens the door to the question about who authorized the NIE leak (the Decider). Nobody else puts the vanity plates on the Bushmobile, under oath.
If I didn’t basically think they were all pretty much in each other’s pocket, I’d think it was a pardon nudge.
Mary @ 135
I think it’s just good lawyering. Libby’s lawyers are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Judge Walton, trying to get anything to stick. Calling Cheney is just one more trick in a long line of failed attempts to find some reason to get this case thrown out. It will probably be just as successful as all of the other attempts, as Fitz can likely stipulate just about anything Cheney might say (”Scooter was REALLY busy.”) without hurting his case.
More than anything, I think that this move shows that (a) Libby is nervous enough that he needs to be firing shots across Cheney’s bow to throw him some sort of lifeline, and (b) Fitz thinks his case is so solid that he doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to nail Libby to the wall. I’m happy about both points.
Hey, MacDaffy, thanks for speaking up!
I’ll link to your original comment from now on when I quote your extremely funny parody. Merry Fitzmas!
MacDaffy @
128
Frank Probst @ 136:
I understand what you’re saying, but I’ve never though that putting an uncontrollable loose cannon on the stand is good lawyering. Cheney is even more of a nightmare witness than Bill Gates ever thought of being: he will think he can outsmart the process, and he won’t take the time to be properly prepped. Fitz is going to hand him his head, on a plate, with fava beans and a good chianti.
If this isn’t a bluff, I will be the most surprised person in the room.
Alice Marshall @
86
Before X-examination an X-ray is in order. Make sure there’s human gear under the skin.
As to “I’m too busy”: the man has no mandated duties under the Constitution except for sitting on his glutes. He can do that in court.
Peterr @
87
Three cheers for the correct use of an obsolete nautical metaphor! Grog for all and to all a good night!
perris @ 29
yo perris, it don’t quite work that way here
we don’t dismiss criminal charges just because the Defendant’s witnesses refuse to answer questions
if it worked that way, every criminal defendant would call a witness who refuses to answer the questions, and then have the charges dismissed
scooter gets a fair chance to defend himself. if his superiors and co-conspiritors refuse to cooperate with his defense, the jury can take that refusal into consideration during their deliberations
I don’t think dead eye refusing to answer questions is likely to help scooter in front of a jury, but scooter is welcome to try that as a defense tactic