There’s one question however that haunts me. Why didn’t Fitzgerald put Cheney on the stand and see if he is as honest as Clinton was or what. It would all be sworn-under-oath testimony that could be revisited should Cheney himself go on trial. The arrogant prick just might have lost his temper and really blown it. Any number of things could have happened; all good. There is no way he could have saved Libby or escaped with his own skin.

Now, if Cheney is indicted and tried, he can avoid the witness stand altogether.
Fitzgerald is a smart guy, but I think he missed a golden opportunity to get to the truth and the criminal mastermind.

Sunday, September 14, 2003: Press The Meat
GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson.
…
I don’t [know] who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.

————
By the way, this interview seems to be almost entirely composed of an impressive number of outlandish Cheney claims that with today’s knowledge are obvious whoppers.

One of my particular favorites:

So I say I’m not willing at all at this point to buy the proposition that somehow Saddam Hussein was innocent and he had no WMD and some guy out at the CIA, because I called him, cooked up a report saying he did.

That’s crazy. That makes no sense. It bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever.

Find your own!

They were very effective on Libby’s motivation. Let’s see if they are effective enough to unravel Cheney’s too.

I do believe that, for better or worse, we are in for an even heavier prosecution of lies and motivation.

The WHIG’s sell job to Congress and America was blatantly illegal and the casualties will not be relegated to only the sands of Iraq.

The sand had a much different origin.

As was said: The public deserves to know the truth. That is what sustains us as a model society, if we can.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?817014275062832-L_186_0-1

If the link doesn’t work, on p 22, the Court holds that the “Special Counsel’s jurisdiction is restricted to the investigation and prosecution of the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity and violations of federal law that arise during the course of that investigation.”

p. 26 “Moreover, it is axiomatic that, at any time, the Deputy Attorney General who delegated to the Special Counsel his authority may revoke that delegation.”

p.27 “His authority is therefore confined to the narrow objective of accomplishing the specific mandate he was given.”

p28 “Here, the Special Counsel is essentially removable at will by the Deputy Attorney General.”

p. 29 “Specifically, the Special Counsel ‘can only act within the scope of the jurisdiction that has been granted by the [Deputy Attorney General]’”

J. Thomason at 6:31 pm

I think you make an excellent point about anti-modernity. I would nuance it a little more and say that they are selectively anti-modern. At Church on Sunday, the earth is 6,000 years old. The other six days a week they depend on science that knows that the earth’s age is 4 – 6 billion years old, to tell them where to drill for oil.

You still think oil is liquified ferns and dinosaurs, eh? Not so. God made the oil straight out. They just forgot to mention which day he made it in Genesis [probably the first - “heavens and earth”].

But yes, I think its an unconstitutional bill of attainder, which could void other provisions, including the repeal of habeas. There are also many arugments left unaddressed on habeas and the ultimate argument of, if Congress did have the power to repeal, could they repeal to facilitate an unconstitutional means – allowing Executive fiat detention and punishment specifically barred by the Consitution to continue without judicial review. I think the answer is pretty clearly no, but I haven’t seen the argument really made strongly before a court and we have had some appointments that make you wonder about the continued validity of the Sup Ct – period.

I think you make an excellent point about anti-modernity. I would nuance it a little more and say that they are selectively anti-modern. At Church on Sunday, the earth is 6,000 years old. The other six days a week they depend on science that knows that the earth’s age is 4 – 6 billion years old, to tell them where to drill for oil.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/…..ismiss.pdf

where he lays out his position that he is not acting as an unconstitutionally appointed principal officer because the Acting Attorney General can remove him any time AT WILL. The Judge went with that argument in his ruling – it’s available from PACER and maybe elsewhere – I can get it through PACER but can’t link it for you.

BTW – color me not such a Comey fan and not so in favor of handling the Congressional pressure for an Independent Prosecutor – who would have had a far broader scope – than the Spec Counsel vehicle that we ended up with – which have a very limited scope. In essence, Comey protected the Exec from having anything other than a very very targeted investigation. Fitzgerald, for example, couldn’t have filed charges on the leaked NIE – under his Spec COunsel appointment – if he had wanted to bc as per the appointment, he had a very narrow scope. The leak of a particular item of classified information and any crimes arising from that investigation. Not the leak of any ealier or other bits of classified info.

Plenary authority to clean the second bicuspid isn’t going to help someone in need of a root canal in their molar.

IMO, we’d have been much better off if Comey hadn’t brokered the recusal deal and we’d had a full blown Indep. Counsel appointed (Fitzgerald or someone else).