Posted on 10/30/2005 3:43:25 PM PST by Brian Mosely
Edited on 10/30/2005 4:02:24 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN OCT 30, 2005 18:31:21 ET XXXXX
PROSECUTOR PLANS ON CALLING CHENEY AS WITNESS IN OPEN COURT; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT LOOMS
**Exclusive**
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is planning to call Vice President Dick Cheney as a witness in the trial of Lewis Libby, the DRUDGE REPORT has leaned.
But the high stakes move could result in an executive privilege showdown between the White House and Fitzgerald, a top government source said Sunday.
"If Mr. Fitzgerald is going to demand a public recounting of conversations between the vice president, or even the president, and his staff, on matters he, himself, has acknowledged are 'classified,' executive privilege will obviously be invoked."
Fitzgerald has made it clear to lawyers involved in the case that he prefers Cheney appear as a witness in open court.
"Mr. Fitzgerald is starting from the position that this should not be done on remote or videotape," the well-placed source said.
Fitzgerald and Libby's attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week, TIME magazine reports in new editions. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some "serious" jail time.
Developing...
I hope that Libby is going to be bringing in some interesting people as well. Especially those who never thought they'd have to testify.
Actually, the FIRST to videotape good ole Sandy were the officials where he was seen stuffing his pants and socks with papers, right?
Since he agreed to a plea agreement, I'm sure he was in court...but again. Remember...Cheney has not been charged with anything...has given testimony through depositions I believe, and since Libby does not seem to be contradicting Cheney's telling him the information, Fitz's determination (if this is true) seems to be overkill.
Why is everyone suggesting Bush pardon Libby? Let him defend himself against the charges. Yes, I think that Fitz was wrong to continue the investigation when it was shown no crime occurred, but the bottom line is whether or not Libby perjured himself. Libby and Rove said they didn't talk to reporters about this...and they did. That doesn't mean they were WRONG to do it, it just means that they put the president in a bad situation and Libby shouldn't have lied about it...so why should he pardon Libby? When Clinton pardoned Susan McDougall, we all know it was to pay her back for her silence. WHy should Bush, by pardoning LIbby, make it appear the same?
So...has the special prosecutors office begun already to try this case in public? Putz.
The issue is NOT whether Cheney shouldn't testify..it's whether or not it needs to be in open court. Clinton testified on video tape several times. If Drudge is correct, Fitz's demand that Cheney testify in open court brings it to a whole new level...and shows that he wants a "circus" or "show" of a vice-president having to be in court.
If Clinton had had to go to OPEN court, fine...but if the ONLY ones made to do so are Republicans, why?
I think we know the reason.
Grandstanding, trying to pressure Libby into a plea deal becasue he's got flimsy evidence.
Chrissy would certainly know about manipulating the truth!
I cannot STAND "spit-in-the-face" Chrissy Matthews. He is SOOOO unbelieveably biased and STUPID. Did he NOT read the indictments or hear Fitz' testimony? THis indictment has NOTHING to do with manipulation of WMD intelligence, It has been SHOWN that despite Libby's possible perjury about when he talked to journalists about Plame, his comments TO those journalists were TRUE....that Plame, not Cheney, sent Wilson to Niger. And Chrissy KNOWS it! He also knows that if you say a lie often enough, some people WILL believe it.
This is just Sunday evening Drudge BS ... he's trying to create interest in his Sunday night radio program. Having been a FReeper these many years ... Drudge is entirely predictable ... and I might add ... after Lewinsky and Bubba's shenanigans ... Drudge is over ... get a clue.
Possibly..except that Libby evidently had TRIED for a plea, but Fitz wanted him to serve SERIOUS jail time. If it IS a case of trying to get him to plead now, he might realize that he doesn't have a great case. I would love Libby to take this to trial and get off, but again..it's DC.
This needs to finish off and quick but since everyone still wants to "play" the game:
Why is Kristofs article Op Ed Piece quoted here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_25_05_CKI.html
Hidden behind Time Select now? Or is that the reason they went with the "Times Select" to hide all "their" free speech?
Check it out for yourself when you search this phrase on NY Times Search or yahoo or google:
"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger"
HERE is the BIG question from this article: How many "recent" visits to Nigeria by ex-ambassadors happended in the past year or two when this artice was printed on May 6th 2003? It doesn't take to long of a stretch to put two and two together now does it?
All this case proves so far is 1) there are too many back-stabbers from the Clinton years left in the CIA and that stable needs to be cleaned out; 2) any aide who speaks to the msm needs to be fired on the grounds that they are too stupid to hold their job.
"Possibly..except that Libby evidently had TRIED for a plea, but Fitz wanted him to serve SERIOUS jail time. If it IS a case of trying to get him to plead now, he might realize that he doesn't have a great case. I would love Libby to take this to trial and get off, but again..it's DC."
We were reading the statutes he was charged under yesterday and one of them specified consecutive sentencing for multiple violations...
I saw G Gordon Liddy on CNN yesterday saying Libby should take the jail term to help the President get past this - but if Libby is innocent, how you could you ask that of him?
From my reading of the indictment, there does not appear to be a dispute between Libby and the prosecutor as to the fact of whether Cheney informed Libby of Plame's CIA affiliation before Libby spoke with reporters.
Libby admitted in his statements that he did learn this first from Cheney. What Libby goes on to say is that he sort of forgot that he had been told it by Cheney and that it seemed to him he was learning about Plame as if it were new when Russert told him.
So it probably is NOT necessary, strictly speaking, that Cheney testify. Both sides could stipulate as to what and when Cheney told Libby.
However, Libby may want to call Cheney to testify to provide more information about the circumstances of the conversation.
Recall that there are really two aspects of the alleged false statements by Libby.
First, there is the he said/she said between Libby and each of the three reporters. The fact that Russert and Cooper can be shown to have a background as (or are married to) partisan Democrats, and the inherent difficulty in very busy executives recalling with exactitude conversations that occurred months earlier, will be likely to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, so long as the jury is not essentially a jury of Democrats (the venue will be important to Libby - he should try to get it out of D.C.). And I think Miller will just come across as a dingbat.
I actually think the more serious of the two aspects of the false statements alleged to have been made by Libby is the second one: that Libby claimed when he discussed the fact of Plame with reporters he heard it "as if it were new" and forgot having been told it by Cheney. The problem with this statement is that it may seem unbelievable in light of the fact that, according to Fitzgerald, he discussed Plame with about six other people in the White House, State and CIA prior to speaking with the reporters. If only one person, such as the VP, had mentioned it to Libby in passing in the midst of a conversation concerning mainly other topics, then it would be more believable that Libby might have forgotten.
So it may be in Libby's interest to call the VP and the various other people who told the FBI or the GJ that they had discussed Plame with Libby, in order for Libby to put these conversations in context and demonstrate to the jury that the information about Plame was just one small bit of data that was floating around in his mind and not a very important and a quite forgettable fact.
A side benefit to Libby of calling Cheney as a witness is to put into play issues of executive privilege that may take months or years to fully litigate. It is in Libby's interest to slow things down, as I believe the further back in time the events become the less likely it is that the jury will want to jail anyone over this and if it drags on until January 2009 perhaps the president will pardon Libby before he would have to serve jail time.
We will have to wait and see whether Fitzgerald indicts Cheney or Rove the Sunday night before the 2008 election.
He may be good at reporting things on his website, but in radio he is pathetic. I can't listen to him either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.