Libby Defense: Cheney May Be Too Damaging For Stand

[kpete]

Libby Defense: Cheney May Be Too Damaging For Stand
CNN | February 8, 2007

Some in the defense team believe the prosecutor's presentation has been strong and persuasive and therefore would open both Cheney and Libby up to a grilling when they were cross-examined, which would not help sway the jury, the source with knowledge of the discussions said.

It was the expectation of the defense team to put both Libby and Cheney on the stand to help buttress its case, the source said.


VIDEO:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/02/08/todd.libby.russert.cheney.affl&wm=10

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/02/08/libby-defense-cheney-may_n_40792.html

[LiberalFighter]

1. How would Cheney's testimony help the defense?

Will testify that he is disgusting worthless moron unfit for office?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I never did see how that was going to help.

he best I could come up with was that they were trying to blackmail something (God knows what) out of Cheney with the threat of putting him on the stand.

[lligrd]

11. That Would Require Him To Be Honest

so that is a definite no.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Well by virtue of his testimony even inadvertently

he could still demonstrate by his demeanor and crass words that he is a disgusting worthless moron unfit for office.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Well, you're assuming he's going to tell the truth.

Why should he start now?

[Kikosexy2]

36. Cheney would...

prefer to feed this little weasle Libby to the lions than tell the truth....It's the Cheney way of justice, que no?...

[peacetalksforall]

3. Think about it - can you think of anything Dick could say that would

or could plant one doubt in the mind of even one juror?

[LiberalFighter]

25. Absolutely not one thing that would cast doubt

I'm expecting that he thinks he is so much better than everyone else and the jury would get disgusted with him.

[TahitiNut]

4. Cheney can't meet the requirements: Telling the Truth.

That man lies as often as he breathes.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. You Underestimate Him

He could hold his breath and still lie. Breathing is not a requirement for Cheney to be lying.
GAC

[TahitiNut]

37. (lol) I stand corrected. You're right, of course.

It's truly stunning how extremely corrupt and anti-"American" he is. I've always been non-partisan to the point of anti-partisan, but almost nothing confirms to me the fundamental evil of blind partisanship than the appalling corruption in the GOP that's been allowed due to the willful blindness of GOPhers. If the same blindness existed in baseball, teams with long dry spells would be permitted to openly bludgeon the opposing team with their bats without their 'fans' blinking an eye ... other than to cheer.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Or Hand The Umps A Check During Line Up Card Switches

I think that's a pretty apt metaphor for the GOP, too! "Here ump, buy yourself a new plasma TV. Nobody sees nothin'."
GAC

[daleo]

5. Cheney shoots lawyers

It could be dangerous to legal counsel to put him on the stand.

[upi402]

7. LOL

:rofl:

[mmonk]

21. They would have to clear the court room of lawyers

and have the judge asks questions presented by the respective sides. Oh yeah, check all firearms at the door.

[LiberalFighter]

26. Wouldn't that be something if the judge in front of the jury and Cheney

order that there hunting is not allowed in the courtroom?

[havocmom]

39. How would the Secret Service take such an order?

They could disarm Cheney, but his henchmen would likely be allowed in with arms, to protect the SOB.

And if he should order one of them to give him their gun, could they decline? :shrug:

What is the legal limit on lawyers, anyway?

[Ken Burch]

6. First time I saw the thread headline, I thought...oh puhleeze...Cheney's not really THAT fat!

n/t.

[Heywood J]

38. It would burst into flames... NT

NT

[louis-t]

41. Haaa! Made me laugh out loud.

Thanks.

[orleans]

8. too damaging for the stand? look what he's done to the country & the world!

i say throw the fucker on the stand and let him go fu*k himself! ha!

[murielm99]

9. I thought the defense put Cheney

on their witness list to pre-empt Fitz.

They don't have to call Cheney at all. They certainly don't want him cross-examined. But Fitz can't call him as a witness if the defense has him on their list.

But why would Fitz WANT Cheney as a witness? To get him to perjure himself?

[Contrite]

10. At Huff Post someone said it had to do with culling the jury

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/libby.ap/index.html

Above article backs that up.

[H2O Man]

12. Not really.

Mr. Fitzgerald announced that he was not calling Cheney, and then Teddy wells said the defense would. Mr. Fitzgerald could have called him; the decision was his, and the defense was not in a position to pre-empt or otherwise influence his decision.

[formercia]

13. Cheney might request immunity to testify

Fitz says no. Cheney tells Libby no.

[H2O Man]

16. Cheney had agreed

to be a defense witness. It would not be possible for him to get any form of immunity to be a defense witness.

Team Libby is facing two very difficult decisions. The first is whether to have Scooter take the stand. Of course, a defendant does not have to testify. The judge would instruct the jury that they can not draw any conclusions in deciding the case based on the defendant not taking the stand, and the jurors all would, at some level. It's really difficult to defend a perjury case, without the defendant explaining that he didn't purposely lie. The defense strategy -- the "memory defense" -- is not going to be allowed in, it appears from Judge Walton's previous statements, if Libby doesn't testify.

But people close to the defense have reported that Team Libby is concerned that Mr. Fitzgerald would shred either Libby or Cheney in cross-examination. That's the primary concern with Libby. The added concern with Cheney is that Mr. Fitzgerald has plenty of evidence that would show Dick was focused on the "Wilson problem." In fact, besides the discussion VP Cheney had with Mr. Fitzgerald (which would be introduced, and made available to the public), and the Wilson op-ed with Cheney's notations, the truth is that Mr. Fitzgerald has plenty more to show that Cheney was focused on the Wilsons each and every day. I think that one of the exhibits from yesterday puts the vice president in a very shakey position, although the media did not focus on it. It is the e-mail to Hannah & Libby; check page two: the dates neat Cheney's name at the top.

If Cheney testified honestly (I know, I know), he would do far more damage than good for the defense. And that is why they are not likely to call him.

[exlrrp]

20. but why didn't Fitz subpoena Cheney?

However you slice it, defense or prosectution, Cheney's testimony is critical to this case. Your right--Cheney would do harm to Libby's case. he has personal knowledge of the circumstances---whyy isn't he subpoenaed as a prosecution witness?
Sure makes Fitz look like he's protecting Cheney not to have him testify

[B Calm]

23. The republican side in Fitz shines through....

[H2O Man]

30. You are silly.

Mr. Fitzgerald is not a republican.

[myrna minx]

31. Please review the case before you besmirch the reputation of Mr. Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald has put on a brilliant case against Libby.

[The Night Owl]

52. If Scooter Libby's lawyers are right to suggest that he is being sacrificed...

If Scooter Libby's lawyers are right to suggest that he is being sacrified to save butts in the Whitehouse, then Patrick Fitzgerald is doing an excellent job carrying out the prerogative of butts in the Whitehouse.

[myrna minx]

53. Fitzgerald's eyes are currently on the prize

of getting a conviction for Libby. He had stated that he is not seeking other indictments "at this time". Mr. Fitzgerald is not a superfluous speaker. He speaks very measuredly. He still has a grand jury available. I don't believe that this is over, not by a long shot, but in order to go for the bigger fish, he needed to secure this conviction. I have been following this trial quite closely, and Fitzgerald has been masterful. I don;t believe that he is going to stop at Libby. :hi:

[H2O Man]

57. However,

there is no evidence that Scooter is being sacrificed for Rove. And there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Fitzgerald is "carrying out" anything for the White House. That is as silly as the 100% incorrect reference to Mr. Fitzgerald as a republican.

[Missy Vixen]

43. He's not putting Cheney on the stand

because it does nothing for his case.

He's not trying to curry favor with Crashcart. Why would he want to?

Julie

[H2O Man]

29. It appears that

Mr. Fitzgerald & Co. do not agree that "Cheney's testimony is critical to this case." More, the decision not to call him has nothing to do with "protecting Cheney." In this trial, the only person that Mr. Fitzgerald is attempting to convict is Scooter Libby. Every action that the prosecution has taken in the case is focused on convicting Libby, and nothing else.

I surely appreciate the feelings of those who wish Cheney had been charged. However, I do not share the belief that it would have been good to have him listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator." I know that you want real charges, as well. After Scooter is convicted, a decision regarding VP Cheney will be made. At this time, I believe that there is enough evidence to not only charge Cheney, but convict him.

[npincus]

35. follow-up

After Scooter is convicted, a decision regarding VP Cheney will be made.

Do you really think so? What more does Fitzy know about Cheney's involvement now than he did when he brought charges against Libby? It seems to me that Fitzy had all his ducks in row with respect to a solid perjury case against Libby from the get-go, and chose not to pursue Cheney (though Cheney had not testified under oath). If Fitzy was after Cheney, what more does he know now and what charges could he bring?

i fervently hope you are right. I hope Fitz does not pack up his backs and go home after this.

[disndat]

44. Exactly

Fitzgerald's brilliant strategy is becoming more apparent everyday. Even with Libby's "memory defense," the case Bright up all the evidence, including the smoking gun, Cheney's handwritten memo, to point to Cheney's masterminding the leak, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Uncle Roy]

45. "After Scooter is convicted" indeed...

My guess is that Fitz has intended all along to convict Libby on the easy-to-prove (but not so emotionally satisfying) perjury charges, and then, at sentencing time, threaten to do mean things to him unless he cooperates and agrees to testify in further investigations against Cheney et al. At least I hope so... this is SOP for prosecutors.

It's probably difficult or impossible to get actual courtroom convictions against the higher-ups without the cooperation and testimony of someone like Libby. The bigshots very rarely actually DO anything, they just tell their underlings to do the evil deeds. Their own hands stay relatively clean.

Libby will be convicted because many people have testified about the many conversations they have had with him. There aren't so many people in a position to offer similar direct testimony about things that Cheney actually did and said. Libby would be perfect. I hope Fitz can "flip" him.

[TahitiNut]

49. Agreed. Especially with the last sentence.

It seems clear that Cheney could be found, at the least, guilty of suborning perjury. Libby was an 'agent' of Cheneys and, to the degree he's acting in that role, Cheney becomes complicit.

[LSK]

51. I dont see Fitz needing Cheney at this point, its almost a "slam dunk" now

[worldgonekrazy]

54. Can Fitzgerald subpeona Cheney?

I think that if he tried to, and Cheney really did not want to testify, he and his lawyers would be able to hide behind Executive Privilege pretty easily.

[TahitiNut]

48. Regarding Walton's rulings on the "memory defense" ..

It seems to me that Walton has neatly (and properly) excluded nearly all evidence that relates to anything else Libby may have been 'busy' with on the basis that it's irrelevant unless and until Libby himself makes the direct claim he was distracted by such matters. So, while he's effectively made Libby's testimony necessary in the introduction of such matters, he's not intruded upon Libby's 5th Amendment rights in doing so.

Nobody can make claims regarding Libby's preoccupations other than Libby and his boss (who set those priorities), Cheney. For anyone else to make such claims would be hearsay only - and not admissible given the availability of the primary witnesses to such preoccupations.

Thus, it seems to me, that the defense is strictly limited to three alternatives (which are NOT mutually exclusive):
(1) - Have Libby testify regarding those duties and matters that precluded him from tracking the Plame matters more closely.
(2) - Have Cheney testify regarding those duties and matters he established as priorities for Libby, precluding Libby's ability to track the Plame matters more closely.
(3) - Claim that the prosecution hasn't made a case. (Fitz, of course, will move for a directed verdict if this is done and neither Libby nor Cheney testify.)

Outside of the above, the defense will attempt to identify reversible errors as the basis for an appeal. I just can't see how even a neocon-friendly court of appeals can find for the appellant lacking the testimony of Libby and/or Cheney - since the failure to mount a full defense consistent with their own defense theory of "too busy to recall" would be prejudicial on appeal.

Did I miss anything here?

[Missy Vixen]

42. H2O Man, do you believe that this was a calculated decision?

It seemed like Patrick Fitzgerald was playing a pretty high-stakes game of chicken with the defense, and he came out the victor. They wanted him to call Cheney; he refused, then they had to make noises that they were in order to assist with the jury selection. Considering the fact that the voir dire was a nightmare for all (defense drilling jurors for hours on their opinions of Cheney, the war, etcetera,) I wonder to myself how much the strategy may have backfired for Mr. Wells.

I'm with you. I can't see how the defense will put either Libby or Cheney on the stand. To not do so, though, is to signal that they have more or less given up, and they're waiting for the inevitable appeal. I don't believe Judge Walton has given them much basis for an appeal, though. Their "memory" defense has been shredded, their "I was just too busy to know what classified information was being given out" defense is shredded as well. The grand jury testimony transcripts were damning. I'm only sorry we're not able to hear them in their entirety as of yet. (Hopefully, they'll put them up on iTunes for download or something.)

Julie

[H2O Man]

58. I think it is

also important to remember that if Cheney were to testify, it is better for Mr. Fitzgerald to be doing cross-examination than direct. There are a few reasons why, and they tend to be the things that those calling Mr. Fitzgerald a "republican" and saying he is "carrying" the load for the White House have no understanding of.

[POAS]

15. I think Cheney could still be called by Fitz

as a rebuttal witness.

If Libby's defense calls into question aspects of the case as they directly relate to Cheney then after the defense finishes Fitz would have an opening to call Cheney to rebut.

[tinrobot]

17. Cheney under oath = instant perjury charge

The man can't tell the truth long enough to order pizza.

If Fitz gets him on the stand under oath, he'll commit perjury and open himself up to his own trial.

[The Wizard]

22. But in one of Bush's signing statements

there's probably language that says members of his Administration are immune to any and all criminal charges from now until the end of the world.
The Rosenbergs were executed on less evidence.

[radfringe]

18. damn... that screws the pooch on the toons I had sketched out n/t

[Lasher]

19. Noooooo, don't deprive me of this!

I've been counting the moments until I could see Fitzgerald grill Lord Vader on the stand. Please, don't deprive me of this! And some worry that he'll lie? I gurantee he'll lie, he doesn't know the difference any more. He can't help it. But that's exactly what I want him to do, lie under oath. And cry like a baby when Fitzgerald picks him to pieces.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Oh Oh Oh.... will they have a medical team in the courtroom for Cheney?

Maybe they will hook him up to a monitor to make sure he doesn't die on the stand. He does look cold and difficult at times to tell if his heart is really beating.


Wait wait... it might be in his best interest to have that monitor hooked up so the jury can see it. Then they will know he has a heart that beats. The prosecutor would just let the jury know that the monitor does not show that he has a good kind heart.

[MNWild]

32. Had to clean the tea from my keyboard again when

Paul Begala was on Stephanie Miller's show a little while ago. He said he couldn't wait to witness the sulfurous sizzle when Cheney's hand touched the Holy Bible. I believe that this is what they are truly afraid of. LMAO :applause: :popcorn:

[myrna minx]

34. Welcome to DU, my fellow Minnesotan.

:hi: Here's a link to our Minnesota forum. Stop by and say hi!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=160

[spanone]

33. Cheney would lie under oath. He has shown only disdain for our Constitution.

[Bake]

46. I just had visions of an old L.A. Law episode

Where one of the lawyers (Jimmy Smits, I think) cross-examined a guy literally TO DEATH. His ticker gave out under intense cross examination.

Use your imagination ...

Bake

[LonelyLRLiberal]

47. Seems to me this is a no-brainer.

From the get-go, I saw no way that Cheney's testimony would help Libby, whether or not he perjured himself on the stand.

The fact that Bush and Cheney are letting Libby go to trial in the first place is baffling to me. If Bush had just pardoned Libby, there would have been a huge uproar, but it would have died down and been replaced by the latest celebrity news (e.g., Anna Nichole Smith's death).

The interesting thing after the presumed conviction is whether Libby's possible sentence will be enough for him to flip or if Fitz has held back other separate charges against Libby to use as leverage to make him squeal.

[LSK]

50. at this point, they have NO CASE

I dont know what the Defense could do.

[tofurkey]

55. I can see it becoming a Jack Nicholson moment

from "A Few Good Men"

With Cheney losing it shouting "You can't handle the truth!"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Dracos]

56. I would love to see Cheney takw the stand

talk about must see tv but it will never happen no way no how.

[luckyleftyme2]

59. CHENEY THE SUMP PUMP

READ NICKOLAS KRIST0F'S ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. IF HE CAN GET THIS INFORMATION YOU KNOW THAT FITZGERALD HAS IT.
PUT PRESSURE ON YOUR STATE POLITICIANS,YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS TO PRESSURE THE COURTS TO CARRY THIS TO THE TOP. NO BACK ROOM DEALS.!
ITS TIME WE CLEANED THE CORRUPTION OUT OF WASHINGTON.
EXILE WOULD BE A JUST PUNISHMENT;SAY CONFISCATION OF ALL THEIR WORLDLY GOODS,AND EXILED TO IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN FOR LIFE. I MEAN THINK OF ALL THE FAMILIES ON BOTH SIDES WHO HAVE SUFFERED FOR
THIS TRUMPED UP WAR!