Countdown: John Dean - 'A Lot of Evidence Cheney Gave False Statements'

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 06:04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4dGrkp288   Posted on YouTube: November 03, 2009 By YouTube Member: firedoglake Views on YouTube: 2055   Posted on DU: November 02, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1050

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - 2 November 2009: Keith interviews John Dean about former Vice President Dick Cheney's recently released FBI May 2004 interviews concerning the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

Keith asks if what is revealed as the answers of Cheney, including 72 'I don't recalls,' a possible record according to Dean, constitutes perjury or obstruction of justice. Dean says there seem to be violations of the false statements law, as well as possible obstruction of justice.

OLBERMANN: "In the section on the people with whom Cheney discussed Plame, two lines are redacted. The blog Fire Dog Lake correlates the lines to a Justice Department filing claiming privilege 'because they summarize a confidential conversation between the Vice President and the President.' Mr. McClellan says in his book that Cheney's lawyer, who was at the FBI interview, later leaked to reporters that the President had declassified select information about Iraq, but when Cheney was asked about this declassification by the FBI, he claimed executive privilege.

Let's turn now to the White House counsel under President Nixon, John Dean, now columnist at FindLaw.com, and author of Blind Ambition, Worse Than Watergate, Broken Government and more. Welcome back, John.

Is this perjury, is this obstruction, and if it's either, how come there are no charges?"

DEAN: "Well, the key element of perjury, of course, is being under oath. There's no indication in the notes of the interview that this was a sworn testimony. There's a lot of evidence that he gave a number of false statements to federal officials, which is clearly a federal offense under 18 USC-1001, the false statements statute, and it could well be an obstruction of justice, so, it's not clear why Fitzgerald did not aggressively pursue this. This, Keith, is something of a record. If you'll recall, former Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman did 150 'I don't recall's' during his three days before the Senate Watergate committee. This is 72 in less than three hours. That's right up there."

OLBERMANN: "Well, he's got that going for him, at least. Does the whole thing, particularly the number of apparent false statements to federal authorities explain why the Vice President pushed so hard for a pardon for Mr. Libby?"

DEAN: "This to me is one of the best explanations in what did happen, why Cheney pushed his relationship with Bush, if not to the breaking point, very close to it, to try to get a pardon for Libby..."

- snip -

OLBERMANN: "In sum, what have we learned because the FBI releasedthese notes?"

DEAN: "Well, we certainly have learned a lot about Cheney's personality and character and style. We've learned he is very effective at dissembling. He has now gotten himself beyond the statute of limitations. These are no threat to him whatsoever now that they have been released..."

MORE

[flyarm]

1. and what exactly is being done about it?? or any of the filthy crimes? nada! eom

[tclambert]

2. What was that bit about the statute of limitations?

Is Cheney gonna get away with it just because the Justice Department dithered too long?

[fascisthunter]

3. and yet nobody in this corrupt government will do anything

a handfull will support an action, but the rest will do nothing.

[ginnyinWI]

4. Isn't Cheney and old Nixon man?

He seems to have learned to be devious from somewhere...also the paranoia.

[tclambert]

5. Yes, he was. He worked under Rumsfeld then.

He became chief of staff under Ford.