Prosecutor Plans on Calling Cheney as Witness in Open Court

[laureloak]

From Drudge

<snip>
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.

Developing

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[grannylib]

1. Gee, it's almost as if they have something to HIDE eom

[Vanje]

2. Gee. I hope Scooter watches his health

It would be a shame if something unfortunate should keep his trial from commencing.

[thereismore]

3. drudgereport? careful! One thing I don't understand:

is Fitzgerald going to prosecute this case? Is that a given? I don't think so.

[meganmonkey]

4. Fitzgerald is the prosecutor

What makes you think that isn't a given? Did I miss something?

[dmkinsey]

7. Fitzgerald said at the press conference that he would not

be THE prosecutor at trial. He wasn't clear who it WILL be

[pacalo]

11. He was being humble when answering if *he* was going to be the prosecutor.

In an effort to acknowledge credit to his team, he said that his team would be involved & that, yes, he would be the prosecutor.

A sign of a damn good boss.

[kestrel91316]

13. Fitz is indeed the head honcho, so the prosecutor of record in this

case, but I suspect he will have his staff doing most of the actual work as he delegates it to them. He is probably too high up to be the actual courtroom inquisitor, but can be running the show from behind the scenes.

[pacalo]

17. I don't know if that will be the case; he wasn't specific...

Here's the quote:

"I will be involved in the prosecution, but if you meant individually -- will I personally participate -- yes. If you meant individually, I haven’t done this individually. I have a great team from D.C. Main Justice, FBI, & Chicago & it will be a team effort."

My interpretation is that he prefers his work to be regarded as a team effort (it most certainly is), rather than receiving all the glory himself.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. I loved that part

He made sure to thank those working with him on the case and his team in Chicago. Very sweet.

[the_spectator]

5. I didn't think FItz was necessarily going to prosecutre the case either -

if he is, that's great news! On the down-side, I've read today elsewhere that it will probably be one whole long YEAR until Fibby's trial actually begins. (Yes, I know he is being arraigned in a few days, but that's not the trial.)

[meganmonkey]

8. I guess I am wrong, although I still am not clear

on the process, I guess. I must have just assumed he would be the prosecutor but it sounds like I am mistaken...

:shrug:

[pacalo]

19. No, you're not mistaken.

Go to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on Lewis Libby Indictments & queue to 40:50.

Here's the quote:

"I will be involved in the prosecution, but if you meant individually -- will I personally participate -- yes. If you meant individually, I haven’t done this individually. I have a great team from D.C. Main Justice, FBI, & Chicago & it will be a team effort."

[pacalo]

9. Yes, he humbly said he would be part of the "team".

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Yep

I think he's just the head figure and does the final say. I got the impression that he has tons of other people who are helping him out with everything on the case both in DC and Chicago. Either that or his Chicago team is with him in DC.

[stevebreeze]

6. NO WAY is this going to trial

It just ain't going to happen. Bush will pardon the schmuck before he lets a trial begin. Even a pardon would be less harmfully to * then a trial.

[NanceGreggs]

12. You can't 'pardon' someone ...

... before he's been to trial. You have to be convicted of a crime before you can be 'pardoned' for it!

And let's remember, as Bushie said, "Every American citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty." I guess that's of great comfort to Juan Padilla tonight, as he sits in a prison cell -- still not accused of any crime!!!!!!!!

[kestrel91316]

14. Not so. Bush can pardon anybody he wants, any time he wants

(federal cases). He doesn't have to wait for a trial. Nice, huh?

[NanceGreggs]

16. Don't think that's the case

A pardon means you are 'pardoning' someone of a crime, i.e. lessening or obliterating their sentence. If you haven't been proven to have committed a crime, you therefore can't be pardoned for committing it.

And even if Bush could do so (which he can't), if he 'pardoned' Libby for a crime he hadn't committed (according to US law, you are not guilty of a crime until it's been proven and so declared by a judge or jury), it would be tantamount to declaring him guilty before-the-fact.

In short, a 'pardon' only has effect if someone has been proven, in a court of law, to have committed the crime or crimes they have been tried on. It is then a matter of executive privilege for a sitting president to review the case and pardon the accused from having to serve the sentence meted out, or relieve him/her of the obligation to pay any fines levied by the court.

A presidential pardon does not mean your conviction has been overturned; it simply means that (if executive privilege has NOT been abused) the president has reviewed your case and decided that there were extenuating circumstances that warrant mercy.

[kestrel91316]

23. I believe Bush 41 did it for somebody in Iran-Contra, maybe Walsh???

No, that can't be right........Walsh was the prosecutor, lol. But I am quite sure it HAS been done by presidents. It is a crying shame, but they CAN do it.

[NanceGreggs]

24. Nope.

Again, a pardon must come after a conviction, not before. You can't be pardoned for a crime you haven't been convicted of, any more than you can be given an abortion BEFORE you're pregnant.

[eShirl]

25. tell that to Ford & Nixon (n/t)

[Uncle Roy]

30. The Bush-I Iran/Contra pardons

The prosecutions of the individuals I am pardoning represent what I believe is a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences.

Interesting language. Sound familiar? He goes on:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger for all offenses charged or prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh or other member of his office, or committed by these individuals and within the jurisdiction of that office.

Complete text here...

[NanceGreggs]

32. In both of these cases ...

... the pardons were granted by the President who followed the presidency where the wrong-doing took place. A presidential pardon cannot be handed out like candy, or on a whim.

In the case of Nixon and the Iran-Contra cases, both Ford and Bush I had compelling reasons for granting pardons (at least they were accepted at the time as being compelling), i.e. for the greater good of the Nation, the 'healing' of the country after Nixon's resignation, etc.

Also, there are guidelines which must be followed, and judicial reviews. (Of course, these guidelines and legal arguments can get VERY creative, as in the Clinton-Rich situation). Before granting a pardon, the Pres must put forward compelling evidence that a trial of an individual or group would cause undue harm to the country, national security, blah, blah, or a compelling argument that justice had not been properly served (i.e. a death-row inmate convicted on the testimony of a witness who later recants).

If Bush could pass around pardons to all and sundry, there wouldn't be a single high-placed, influential Repub, or wealthy Repub donor, who ever faced a trial anywhere, for anything.

One can only wonder what 'compelling' reason Bush could come up with to justify an executive pardon for Libby -- "He's going to open his big mouth and get the rest of us in deep sh*t" is not an acceptable basis for pardon.

[H2O Man]

28. Simply not true.

Please look at what Ford did with Nixon.

[Uncle Roy]

31. Quite right... Ford pardoned Nixon when

Nixon hadn't even been indicted, much less convicted, of any crime. Ford pardoned him, in advance, for any evil deeds he might have done.

Just as a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to, a president can pardon a ham sandwich, and the pickle on the side, if he wants to. Strange but true.

Here's the text of Ford's pardon of Nixon

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740061.htm

[NYC]

10. I don't think an executive privilege showdown

will work well for them.

[kitty1]

22. "Pittbull" Fitz will get to Cheney one way or another...

If it comes down to it, Libby will give up some covert conversations between himself and Cheney if it means not going to jail for 30 years. He'll sing like a canary. Rove will also put out, because Fitzgerald has him where he wants him right now. There's a lot going on behind the scenes right now, that we don't know that half of it. Stay tuned.

[tritsofme]

29. I doubt he'll give up anything

Because he knows even with a sentence of 30 years he'll get out of jail sometime between November 5, 2008 and January 20, 2009.

[lovuian]

15. Why did Clinton not have executive priveledge!!!

??? Is executive priveledge like saying the President is above the law!!!

[NanceGreggs]

18. The executive privilege they're talking about ...

... is like the 'privilege' that exists between lawyer and client, priest and penitent, doctor and patient. Cheney can claim 'privilege' in that, as a member of the executive branch of the government, he cannot speak about, reveal, or answer questions pertaining to 'sensitive' government information.

If called as a witness at trial, Cheney will undoubtedly claim that he cannot speak to the inner workings of the WH, and what conversations were had with what people on the dates in question. He will use it as a shield -- and because no one can 'peak' behind the veil of government secrecy that surrounds the executive branch, the court will have to take his 'word' for it when he says that answering certain questions would breach that 'privilege'.

Of course, we all know what Cheney's WORD is good for ...

[eShirl]

27. because that was a civil trial, he had to testify in it

That's why the Wilsons are planning on filing civil suit against the people who outed her. :)

[ElectroPrincess]

26. Will this happen?

Will Cheney ask for Bush to come along and speak FOR him? Oops! My bad, it's usually the OTHER WAY AROUND. :puke:

Oh, this will be GOOD! :-)