Putting Cheney on the stand

According to recent court filings, [tag]Patrick Fitzgerald[/tag] apparently believes [tag]Dick Cheney[/tag] should testify in [tag]Scooter Libby[/tag]’s criminal trial. As the NYT put it, a filing “underscored the prosecutor’s contention that the vice president’s role was critical to understanding Mr. Libby’s wrongdoing,” and is the first indication that Cheney himself might be called as a government witness.

News accounts this morning suggest Cheney could be called to authenticate his handwritten notes on Joseph Wilson’s critical 2003 NYT op-ed, but there may be even more to it that this. Salon’s Tim Grieve noted [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag]’s court filings make clear that he’d like to put [tag]Cheney[/tag] on the stand in order to “question him about the conversations he had with [tag]Libby[/tag] about [tag]Wilson[/tag]’s column, and in the process to undercut Libby’s claim that those conversations didn’t involve the identity of Wilson’s wife.”

And according to a front-page piece in the WaPo, the conversations between Libby and Cheney got pretty interesting.

Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador’s newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, then his chief of staff, to “get all the facts out” related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby’s 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador’s wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government’s interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV’s published critique.

In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of [tag]Valerie Plame[/tag], Wilson’s wife. But he said Cheney’s interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts.

“The state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson’s employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue,” he said.

I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again — Dick Cheney is the single most destructive force in the Bush administration. Bush has made a series of remarkably, tragically bad decisions over the last six years, but right up there on the list is picking Cheney to run the VP search in 2000 — and letting him pick himself.

When Bush allowed Cheney, who was running the VP search, to be “allowed to be persuaded to be chosen” as the VP candidate, I knew this would be trouble and that BUSH as an MBA was a joke.

A cardinal rule is that the person or team running a search should NEVER be chosen. It is a contamination of the entire process.

  • Why does the Nicholson courtroom scene from “A Few Good Men” keep playing in my head when I think of Cheney on the stand?
    God, that would be awesome!

  • Cheney should demand the same deal Bush got when he finally agreed to testify before the 9/11 commission. No oath, no recordings, only selected people present, and no notes taken.

    I’m sure that would be fine with Patrick Fitzgerald, right?

  • For some reason this keeps popping into my head.

    Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

  • I’m thinking, contrary to Racerx’s post (4), that Cheney may well find himself on the witness stand, under oath. This isn’t a cute little blue-ribbon committee; it’s a criminal trial. Cheney’s walking the razor’s edge on this one, and the clowns who wanted to impeach Clinton for “perjury” would have a hard time selling what makes Cheney so different. Standing up for the guy in public if it all blows up in his face isn’t a good thing, what with the midterms being five-and-a-half months out and all. Bush couldn’t afford to exonerate Cheney with a pardon, for the exact same reason. Rummy can’t block for him, either; he’s wobbly enough as it is right now.

    I’m looking for the Republikanners to finally realize that their “Titanic” has met its iceberg—and they’ll start lowering the lifeboats….

  • Ah, but you’re assuming Bush had some sort of choice in the matter….

    Just think of how Cheney must be kicking himself right now for picking Bush to head the ticket.

  • What are the odds that Cheney will claim “executive privilege” and let Scooter “twist in the wind”?

  • Not just “executive privilege.”

    The White House will declare that Cheney’s testimony would involve revealing “state secrets.” So there will be no Cheney testimony.

  • I’m with Catherine on this. I suspect that Bush was selected as a media friendly frontman for dour Cheney. He was run for governor of Texas to give him some needed credentials for the job. That Cheney woud be veep was never in question. They probably should have has someone other than Cheney chair the veep search committee for the sake of appearences. However, Cheney is a control freak and it is likely he didn’t want to take a chance that the committee would select someone else.

    We will have to wait for the historians to uncover who has hijacked our country.

  • What I want to know is- why did Cheney keep the newspaper with his notes on it? It seems like a stupid thing to do. Something I would expect of Bush but not a smart man like Cheney. I want him to be charged with perjury after he testifies…IF he ever really does get there. With Bush declaring everything Secret, I can clearly see him letting Cheney off the hook by claiming that all Cheney knows is a threat to National Security. It is actually Bush and Cheney who are a threat to our National Security.

  • Comments are closed.