CHENEY & LIBBY Will - NOT - Testify At CIA Leal Trial

[kpete]

Lawyer: Cheney won't testify in CIA case
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney will not testify at the perjury and obstruction trial of his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter Libby, nor will Libby take the stand in his own defense, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.


Defense attorney Theodore Wells said he advised Cheney's lawyer over lunch that his testimony would not be needed. Wells also said he planned to rest his case without calling Libby.

In December, Wells announced that he would call Cheney as a defense witness. Historians said that it would have been the first time that a sitting vice president would have sat as a witness in a criminal case.

Libby is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Plame is married to prominent war critic Joseph Wilson.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial_32

[mnhtnbb]

1. No chance for perjury.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. I don't know why the defense doesn't just call it quits.

They know the pardon is coming anyway.

[AndyA]

6. I agree.

I'm sure Bush called Libby in before Libby announced his resignation, and told him to not worry, the next couple of years would be tough ones, but no matter what the outcome, he'd take care of him before leaving office.

We just have to make sure Bush isn't in a position to do that when he leaves office!

[GardeningGal]

3. I always thought it was a smokescreen.

Cheney never planned on testifying and the defense had him on the witness list so they could grill the potential jury for bias.

[chimpymustgo]

5. Hmmmm....seems likely, doesn't it?

These snakes always weasel out of shit.

[spanone]

4. Why actually ask the people who can really answer the questions???????

Too logical. :sarcasm:

[jaxx]

7. Chickenshits.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

8. I don't care what they tell the jury - it's a sure sign of guilt in a perjury case.

Sure, he has a presumption of innocence, and the prosecution has the burden of proof, but let's face it, if you have followed the testimony, Scooter is one convicted man.

[lonestarnot]

12. Agree!

[AlCzervik]

9. i wonder if Fitzgerald will present a rebuttal case after the defense rests?

[goclark]

10. Is this a good thing or bad thing for us?

[cassiepriam]

11. Duh. nt

[TahitiNut]

13. If I were on the jury ...

... I would not be distracted by the the mere existence of other matters being brought to Libby's attention. I would not be distracted by Morning Intelligence Briefs and other activities that merely provided Libby with context and information regarding security matters and other issues. I would be focusing my attention on one question: What ACTIONS did Libby himself take based on information he got? So what if there was a terrorist threat in Seattle? So what if the North Koreans were building nuclear capability? While those are surely important matters for the State Department and Department of Defense and other areas of government, I would ONLY look at whether Libby himself took it upon himself personally to take actions to understand what consumed the most of his time and attention above and beyond mere "keeping informed." Clearly, Libby took it upon himself to ACT and INTERFERE with Wilson and Plame. This wasn't some activity involving other people halfway around the globe. This was something in which Libby was INVOLVED, not merely a spectator.

The idea that our attention is consumed by things in which we have no direct involvement is totally contrary to the real world. The whole reason people even voted for this cabal is because they are busy earning a living, finding a way to get health care, dealing with their kids, finding a mate, getting an education, and a host of other things that they themselves must actually take action to get the results they want. That's why they don't give more of a shit about Iraq - it's not their problem.

[Bake]

14. Did the judge change his ruling about the "memory defense"?

I believe the judge had previously ruled that if Libby did not testify, he could not assert the "memory" defense. Did that ruling change? IF not, Libby is as good as toast. Countless witnesses have contradicted his grand jury testimony. Without the memory defense, he has NO defense. Fitz has proven his case, it looks like to me.

Wells will move for a directed verdict as a matter of procedure, to preserve issues for appeal, and unless the judge is bought and paid for, that motion will be denied and the case will go to the jury, who will surely convict.

Bake

[robertpaulsen]

15. I believe Judge Walton himself said not letting Libby testify would be suicide.

I can't remember which firedoglake transcript that was, so I don't have a link. But I would say that's just a common sense assessment.