‘We’re calling the vice president’

December 19, 2006

Well, this should certainly be interesting.

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.

Of course, what prosecutors expect and what they’ll get from the White House may be two different things. While sitting presidents have testified in criminal cases, no sitting vice president has — and it’s not as if Cheney is known for his cooperative side. (Then-VP George Bush was subpoenaed to testify in the Iran-Contra trial of Oliver North, but Bush was president by the time a judge ruled he did not need to testify.)

If Cheney does give testimony, there are all kinds of interesting angles/questions to be explored.

Christy Hardin Smith runs through some of the bigger possibilities.

(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?

Here’s another angle to ponder: is it possible Libby will get a presidential pardon, thus keeping Cheney from giving testimony under oath?

Cheney’s middle finger will do the talking.

  • Having the ability to cross-examine cheney would be interesting, but remember that right is limited to what was raised by the defense attorneys on direct examination. I guess the results will depend on whether cheney is called as a friendly or hostile witness. i wonder if the prosecution will call cheney as a hostile witness…

  • The Dickster is going to demand Executive Priviledge and tie this up for years.

    And frankly I’d love to see BG2 give Scooter a pardon. Nothing says “corruption” better than handing out “Get out of Jail Free” cards.

  • NeilS@6, the New York Times blog started last year at Oscar time and refers to the red carpet the celebrities wander up upon arrival at the awards ceremony.

    Hey CB are you going to start referring to yourself as “the Baquette” like Carr does? Carpetblogger would have been a perfect name for the Times and then they wouldn’t have to steal yours.

  • Yes, I just read this on “Raw Story”. Cool. I wonder if there will be a prohibition on “Go Fuck Yourself” as a response to questions.

  • Anybody who can blow your face off and then stick you with making the apology for having your face in the way of his shotgun doesn’t give a shit about the niceties of legal procedure. In fact, he shits on legal procedure.

    To anyone except leading Democrats, this would resemble high crimes and misdemeanors.

  • NeilS (#6)

    I sent in an intentionally naive question to the NY Times site: “What connection, if any, does this Carpetbagger have with the much older and better known ‘Carpetbagger Report’?”.

    Nobody’s tried to answer it yet, but I was surprised they posted it at all since they reserve the right to edit/censor for content.

  • The New York Times Carpetbagger site issue came up earlier in the year with/during the Academy Awards. There were a few discussion threads on this site in which the issue was discussed. Back then, if my memory serves, Steve contacted the NY Times about it and the Times responded to the effect that they would only be using that name/site for the Academy Awards. It is also my understanding that Steve was comfortable with that. However, as we have now all seen, the Times has brought it back for this other nonsense.

  • Libby has always wanted to use a ‘graymail’ defense. I predict that:

    1. Libby calls Cheney as a defense witness.
    2. Cheney refuses to testify (citing executive privilege).
    3. Libby calls for dismissal of the charges based on not being allowed to present a defense.
    4. Charges are dropped.
    5. Libby and Cheney declare victory (and decry the outrageous attempt by liberals to smear a ‘innocent man’).

  • That Libby will be pardoned has been a lock from day one, which is why I’ve never gotten terribly interested in this case. Cheney will never testify. There’s two things this administration is good at: giving handouts to the rich, and keeping their dirty secrets under wraps. They’ll defy all the Congressional subpoenas too, and will probably get away with it.

  • Justice will be served … cooked medium rare with a sause Bernaise, and watch out for the pellets when you bite into it.

  • Here’s another angle to ponder: is it possible Libby will get a presidential pardon, thus keeping Cheney from giving testimony under oath? — CB

    Doesn’t a person have to be convicted first, before receiving a pardon? Or is Bush gonna start a tradition of pre-emptive pardons, same as he did with pre-emptive wars?

  • I have lost interest in this case too. Not that lying to the FBI and perjury are unimportant and should not be prosecuted, but the most important issues of this case will not be tried until they reach the congress in hearings. Some blog sites are not mentioning that Fitzgerald said today that he would not be calling Cheney as a witness and that that is when Libby’s lawyer Wells said that he would. This leads me to believe that Fitzgerald will not come up with some bombshell questioning of Cheney and that the trial, if indeed it still comes to pass, will be a cut -and-dried prosecution of these secondary charges. I can’t believe Cheney is going to go to court with any possibility of jeopardising himself. Hope, however, springs eternal on some of the blog sites, and Fitzgerald will pull off a miracle.

  • “Doesn’t a person have to be convicted first, before receiving a pardon?”

    No. See Richard NIxon and his pardon from Gerald Ford, as just one of many instances.

    • Comments are closed.