Cheney to Give Evidence

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195267.stm
    How significant is this? An American perspective?
     
  2. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #2
    May I offer Libby's canned lies as an unappetizing starter?
     

    Attached Files:

  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    Since when has Cheney proven himself a credible witness? He could swear on a stack of bibles and sign his name in blood, I still wouldn't believe him.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    If you'd have asked me three months ago, I'd have said it was very significant. But that was before the weird twist the case took when Richard Armitage confessed that it was he who outed Plame. Now, it's entirely about perjury.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Cheney giving evidence or spewing spin? How many years did these two have to work on this story? My guess is both will paint the other as the best thing since sliced bread.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Well, Washington DC nearly came to a halt in 1998 over perjury. And we were reminded over and over just how grave a charge of perjury was. ;)
     
  8. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    Welcome back mactastic. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen you posting for a while and was just beginning to wonder if we had finally driven you over the edge. :p

    Anyway, I think it is a big deal that Cheney will testify, but remember he is being called as a defense witness in order to show just how busy Libby was, and how he just forgot about all those discussions with journalists in which he divulged the name of an undercover CIA agent. The cross examination will be priceless - at least if Fitzgerald does his job.

    btw, the confession of Armitage doesn't change a thing. The meetings with Judith Miller in which Libby gave out the secret information took place before the Novak piece hit the streets. Not that it still wouldn't be a crime for a government official to confirm a story about classified information, but Libby was clearly a player in getting the information out well before Armitage leaked to Novak and Woodward. The problem with prosecuting him for violations other than perjury have to do with proving intent - something his perjury defense of "I just forgot" is designed to protect him from.
     
  9. D0ct0rteeth macrumors 65816

    D0ct0rteeth

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Location:
    Franklin, TN
    #9
    Honestly?

    Doesnt matter, and even if it gets to the degree of purgury it wont mean anything, most people are too busy worring about Britney Spear's divorce or what happened on American Idol/CSI/Randomm TV Show in america to give a damn.

    Now if Cheney gave him head.. that would make the news!

    for a few days :)
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Nah, not you guys. ;)

    It's been tough to find time to post lately, not a lack of wanting to post that's kept me away.

    Honestly, I think whether or not Cheney testifies in this case, it's the least of Cheney -- or Bush's -- problems right now. And since Libby's only been charged with perjury, I doubt Fitzgerald is going to produce any bombshells. Both Cheney and Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald already, if memory serves.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    I think it changes matters considerably, at least in terms of the politics. The question of who outed Plame was very much the issue, and now with Armitage saying he did it first the others can claim, as they have already, that they were simply verifying what the reporters already knew. The entire White House conspiracy dimension of the incident pretty much dies for lack of evidence. It's still significant to have a VP's chief-of-staff hauled up on perjury charges, but if anyone is waiting for a bombshell to come out of this trial, then I think they're going to be waiting for a long time. None of this changes what I suspect happened at the White House, but Fitzgerald was never able to bring charges in the main event. On the even more important political side of the issue, the principals now have plausible deniability.
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    That's my point IJ. The meetings with Judith Miller and Matt Cooper in which Libby reportedly leaked the information took place before Novak's piece was published and before his conversations with Armitage. How does one plead they were just confirming Armitage before that event takes place? Time travel? A worm hole in the VP's office? I don't know, but it makes no sense . All Armitage's "confession" does is prove he was the main source for one reporter who, while he was the first to publish, wasn't the first with the information. Remember, if a crime, other than perjury and obstruction of justice, was committed, it is committed when the leaks occur, not when the story is published.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    I know, but I think the Armitage confession really pushed this story onto the back pages, where I suspect it will remain unless the Wilsons can come up with more evidence in a civil trial. Those of us who have tracked this story since the start have our very strong suspicions about what actually happened, but I think it's become even more difficult to prove, and the waters are now sufficiently muddy such that only political junkies like ourselves will much care one way or another. Short of some dramatic turn of events, which I do not expect, this story is pretty much over and done. Skunk's question was whether Cheney's testimony was going to be a significant event. I think it won't.
     
  14. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    Your view that it won't be a significant event may well be right. I continue to hope it will. I know it should be.

    I've also heard that the calling of Cheney may be an effort of Libby's defense team to try to force the White House to pardon him before the trial. Do they really want to allow Cheney to go under oath and be subject to cross examination? We shall see.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    If I understand courtroom procedures correctly, the range of questioning prosecuting attorneys are allowed in cross examining a defense witness is pretty limited. I believe his attorneys can object to any question that strays much from the matters Cheney was called upon by the defense to recount.
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    I think you're right, but with Libby's relationship to Cheney being what it was and the paper trail of Cheney pushing Libby to do something about Wilson, I would hope that Cheney's credibility could be easily challenged on some very important points. I'm no lawyer, but I'm still hoping something resembling the truth comes out of this mess.
     

Share This Page