Why aren't Libby and Chaney testifying? I smell a (pardon deal) rat. Am I wrong?

[yellowcanine]

Libby's "bad memory" defense is cooked without his own testimony and it is clear that his testimony and Chaney's could be extremely damaging to the Bush administration - to the extent of triggering impeachment inquiries of at least Chaney if not Bush as well. I suspect a deal has been struck, if convicted (highly likely now), Libby gets a pardon after the 08 election. This just reeks.

[beaconess]

1. To avoid committing perjury . . .

[Harmonicaman]

2. Well

I don't think you need to be a brain surgeon to figure out who Bush is going to pardon when he leaves office.....

[yellowcanine]

3. No but an actual deal would be another thing altogether. That in itself would be an offense that

Bush could be prosecuted for after he was out of office.

[KurtNYC]

4. Dems should introduce a bill right now to do away with Pres pardons

It wouldn't pass but would keep the heat on this investigation and get more attention for the coming pardon.

Perhaps the Bill should be to ban Presidential Pardons in cases where impeachable high crimes and treason have been commited.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Interesting idea.

Are pardons in the Constitution? (I suspect so--therefore an Amendment would be required to knock them out; still, a helluva prpaganda move. By calling Bullshit right now we could certainly up the political price of issuing those pardons.)

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Yes

of course it's in the constitution, so any bill trying to block them would be pointless.

And Cheney and Libby didn't testify because the Libby defense decided it wasn't in their interest. Defendants rarely testify at their own trials.

If Fitzgerald wanted Cheney's testimony, he could've gotten it. Evidently he didn't want it.

[yellowcanine]

7. Defendents rarely testify, correct - except where they are using a "faulty memory" or

"state of mind" defense. Then it is almost mandatory - at least if one wants the jury to take it seriously. Clearly Libby's best chance of acquittal rides on the jury accepting his "faulty memory" defence. The fact that he isn't testifying either means he has incompetent lawyers, he is viewed as an unreliable witness, or he really isn't concerned that much about a guilty verdict. Number 1 is extremely unlikely, Number 2 is possible, but given the implication of not having him testify definitely worth the risk - he essentially has nothing to lose because otherwise he doesn't really have a defense and a guilty verdict is almost a foregone conclusion. Number 3 is the most plausible, imo and points to the expection of a pardon. As for Chaney testifying - it would have been harder for Chaney to avoid testifying on behalf of Libby than for him to have gotton a Fitz subpeona quashed. A good argument could be made that Fitz didn't need Chaney's testimony to make his case. But Chaney clearly could have bolstered Libby's defence by talking about all of the responsibilities he had at the time of the alleged perjury and why he might have forgotten a particular conversation. Color me skeptical. The rat smell lingers.

[leftofthedial]

8. the whole thing is a farce.

This is not a trial about who outed a CIA operative.

This is a show trial about an isolated specific instance of perjury.

[sofa king]

9. I concur.

At this point, nobody's going to leave office early over it who hasn't left already (Libby, Armitage, Fleischer). Karl Rove survived to steal the election of 2004. The public is indifferent, and the case will be appealed before it's even necessary to pardon the one person out of the half-dozen who should have been imprisoned for life in 2003. Not one white ass will touch a concrete bench in this case, ever.

We are the most corrupt, morally bankrupt nation on earth, and I'm only allowed to say that because my opinion no longer means jack shit.

[SCDem]

10. That's the case they are presenting - for appelate panel

Not for the Grand Jury.

I think the judge is furious. And unfortunately the say of the Grand Jury will not be the final say - because by the sound of their questions they are paying attention and aren't buying Libby's pollyana forgetful memory

[yellowcanine]

12. Just jury - not the grand jury. Grand jury indicts, jury (or petit jury) is the trial jury.

Appeals panels normally do not second guess the trial jury. There has to be some procedural grounds for throwing out a conviction. The judge made a mistake, the prosecutor made a mistake, or the defendent did not have competent representation.

[leftofthedial]

11. the flunkies who have any remote shot at taking a fall here

are even lower-level flunkies than the losers who took the fall for poppy in Iran-Contra.


This is the most corrupt nation on earth.