The Cheney Trial

[Caro]

The excerpt below is posted not just with the full permission, but with the encouragement of the author, who wants his essays to be read by as many people as possible.

From the Huffington Post:

The Cheney Trial, Within The Libby Trial

By Brent Budowsky

Note: for six years I was one of the original writers of the CIA Identities Law working for its orignal sponsor, Senator Lloyd Bentsen.

For the judge and jury, it is the Libby trial.

For America and American politics, it is the Dick Cheney trial and the stakes are far higher than reported in the media…

The Vice President was choreographer of the attack on Wilson. He acted as though he was the Deputy White House political director and the Deputy White House press secretary. He was organizing meetings, drafting talking points and assigning which staff would talk to which reporter…

When we were writing the original law, not one of us, could have ever imagined that identity disclosers would be high officials in the U.S. government. The law was aimed at people very hostile to the U.S., who were acting in a manner that helped the KGB.

It was unthinkable to all of us, that anyone involved in these disclosures, felonious or not, would be high in the U.S. government. Anyone who goes on television and says otherwise is a liar.

Why?

My theory, with substantial evidence to back it up, is that the danger of Joe Wilson was not the damage that Wilson's view did to the Administration policy. It was the danger that Wilson's work would unravel a long term, well planned, highly deceptive campaign that preceded Joe's involvement to deceive the country to drive us to war…

Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left government in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at [e-mail].

Click the title, above, to read Brent’s predictions about the remainder of this bumpy ride.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Aviation Pro]

1. "The woods are dard and deep..."

...for Cheney and his filthy disgusting crew.

[seemslikeadream]

2. identity disclosers would be high officials in the U.S. government

Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[Rock_Garden]

3. Thank you for fleshing this out for me.

It adds a great deal of depth to the proceedings.

[Ilsa]

4. Brent Bud used the term "unpatriotic". I think the word "treasonous"

is more appropriate for Cheeney's actions. He needs to be tried for treason and crimes against the US.

[Ilsa]

5. Brent Budowsky's theory is spot on:

"My theory, with substantial evidence to back it up, is that the danger of Joe Wilson was not the damage that Wilson's view did to the Administration policy. It was the danger that Wilson's work would unravel a long term, well planned, highly deceptive campaign that preceded Joe's involvement to deceive the country to drive us to war.

Prediction: major plea bargaining either has begun, or will begin, before the verdict and watch out if Libby sings in a plea deal."

[tanyev]

6. K & R

[Spazito]

7. The more this trial reveals Cheney's actions/micro-management

of the outing of Valerie Plame, the less likely I see him testifying. Being on the witness list doesn't mean the defense has to call him, I wonder if they will. If they don't, what will that mean? A deal is in the works? If they do, will Cheney fight it?

At this time, I see no "win" for Cheney if he testifies, I see only a great risk for him so why would he testify?

[YDogg]

8. Can't he be called to testify by Fitzgerald?

[Spazito]

9. Not easily, imo, and it is better if he is called by the defense because

Fitzgerald can be much more agressive in cross than he could be in direct. If the defense decides not to call Cheney, I bet they would fight very hard to stop Fitzgerald from calling him as well.

[Vincardog]

10. IF the defense calls him Fitz can only cross on the points raised by te defense.

[Spazito]

11. Yes, but it has the greater potential of a broader range of

questioning than if he is a witness for the prosecution and he can be more aggressive than if it were in direct. Fitzgerald can also question him regarding his previous testimony on any subject matter that is raised by the defense.

Take, for example, the defense focus on the Libby/Cheney note where Cheney wrote, then crossed out, the two words "this Pres." They not only focused on it, they had Addington testify as to what he read those crossed-out words to be which means those two crossed-out words by Cheney have significance to the defense. Given their importance to the defense, were Cheney to testify for them, it seems logical they would question him on those two words which would open up a VERY interesting line of questioning for Fitzgerald, imo.

[YDogg]

13. Very good points.

:popcorn:

[bleever]

12. Lord, here comes the flood.

Recommended.

[Kolesar]

14. Can Lewis Libby beg to cop a plea even after the trial has started? eom

[Caro]

15. What I've been wondering ...

... is why Bush hasn't pardoned Libby yet. He could have done it even before the trial, as his father did for Caspar Weinberger and others who could have sent Poppy to prison.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[cassiepriam]

25. I have wondered this as well. Can he bargain mid trial? nt

[cap]

16. I am wondering if there is more to the Plame case than meets the eye

I am wondering if Plame was getting dangerously close to finding something out about Cheney or suspected that something was going on with Cheney and they chose leaking about her as an excuse not only to shut her husband down but to take out the whole Brewster Jennings operation. Maybe Brewster Jennings was getting too close to something about Cheney and Iraq/Iran WMD that they did not want anyone to know about.

-- Just speculation

[DemReadingDU]

17. Speculating...

maybe B-J happened upon a scenario that WMD were going to be planted in Iraq, to be 'found', thereby 'proving' the Bush administration had a valid reason for going to war in Iraq.

[cap]

20. what I am thinking is that Brewster Jennings might have found

more evidence that Haliburton has sold really key pieces of dual use technology to the Iranians that would be critical to creating a bomb.

-- no evidence that this is so, but this is my guess.

[ktlyon]

23. I always expected that, puzzled why it never happened

[cassiepriam]

26. Yes. Cheney was being more than just vindictive he was scared.

He knew they had very damaging info.
He knew that outing her would result in the deaths, torture of CIA agents.
Maybe that is what he wanted. Agents who knew too much to die.

[annabanana]

18. The lack of coverage of this trial is tantamount to treason.

The deliberate snubbing of this "story" by corporate media is a continuation of the cover-up of Cheney's campaign to discredit Wilson and shut down Brewster - Jennings. The decision makers up there in the hierarchy of Disney, Viacom, GE et.al. are actively complicit in the deception of the American people.

[Disturbed]

19. Congress has a Duty to Impeach VP Cheney!

Will they do so?

[ktlyon]

24. The justice dept has duty to arrest him

special prosecutor time
Oh yeah we have one. Fitz can handle it.

[moodforaday]

21. The day Cheney is indicted or charged with anything

is going to be the day Iran "attacks" the US, or Israel. Right now all Bush has to do is give the order.

[jaysunb]

22. Disturbing....and probably true.

unfortunately, for all mankind. :evilfrown: