Why didn't Fitz call Cheney to the stand in the Libby trial?

[garybeck]

Couldn't Fitzgerald have called Cheney to the stand? I remember everyone saying that the defense was possibly going to have him testify but then decided not to. It seems to me that if Fitz would have just called him, it would have gotten really interesting, and Cheney could be facing perjury charges now. Can't the prosecutor call anyone they want to the stand, as long as it's related to the case? It seems to me, it would be logical to call the defendant's boss to the stand and ask him questions about the case. Why did they leave it to the defense attorneys to decide if Cheney (and Rove) would testify? Couldn't Fitz have called him? If so, why didn't he?

[Swamp Rat]

1. He doesn't like anthrax?

[cynatnite]

2. Oh, you meant Fitz...sorry 'bout that...well here's what I think...

Darth Cheney would have fought a subpoena tooth and nail all the way to the surpreme court. The jedi mind tricks wouldn't work on Fitz or a jury. He knew that.

[mr.alleycat]

3. Because

It was all damage control to start with.

[garybeck]

7. are you saying

you think Fitz was protecting Cheney?

[Kagemusha]

4. Your main mistake is in the "now" at the end of sentance 3

No, "now" Cheney would not be testifying, he would be clogging the court system up to this day with resisting testifying because being the VP gives you super-duper privileges as far as he's concerned.

[lonestarnot]

5. He could have called him. Don't know why he didn't.

[cynatnite]

6. A few reasons, I think...

Cheney would have fought like hell to get on the stand. That would have slowed everything down and we might still be waiting on a trial while Cheney exhausted every legal way of getting out of it.

Another would be because it would mean a huge risk. bush could have just pardoned Scooter rather than Cheney taking the stand. Throwing scooter under the bus was fare more appealing than the public firestorm that would have caused. Plus they might have screamed 'executive privilege' at the top of their lungs for why Cheney couldn't testify.

In the end, we got what we could get. I think Fitz knew that and decided against forcing Cheney to take the stand.

[lonestarnot]

12. Strategical strikes are sometimes tough to plan.

[DearAbby]

8. Because the DEFENSE had him as witness.

there would have been no reason to subpeona him, because he had already been served a subpeona by the Libby Defense team. Why would Fitz send another subpeona to appear at the same trial?


The Defense team supeona'd Cheney then didn't call him to testify, is that Fitz's fault? I believe the Defense team had no intention of calling Cheney to actually testify, I believe he was supeona'd by the Defense to keep him out of that witness chair...know what I mean?

[cynatnite]

9. Is there something on the books that says the prosecution...

can't call a defense witness?

[DearAbby]

10. I dont know I am not a lawyer

the nuance of the position you come at the witness in the form of questioning ..I know under cross examination, you can only questioned what had been revealed under direct examination.

I dont know how Fitzgerald thought would enhance his case, a approach on direct questioning (which he would have to supeona Cheney as the prosecution witness) or come at Cheney on cross examination. I am sure he thought long and hard on this tactic. Maybe felt he case would be better coming at Cheney with cross examination.


edit: It was an utter mess, I can not begin to tell you :eyes:

[Peace Patriot]

11. Probably "he doesn't like anthrax" is the best answer.

But even if he has a lot of courage--which is probably true--and wouldn't be intimidated by this cabal, he was in one helluva spot. Everybody over him--Abu Gonzales, Cheney, Bush--were perps. The Supreme Court is packed--and packing--laying in wait for the chance to confirm "the unitary executive." Congress, full of "pod people" (and not much better now, as a matter of fact--maybe not such disgusting "pod people"--but liberals who say things like, "Impeachment is off the table.")

Anyway, even in the best of times--non-fascist coup times--it's dicey to take on an acting president. In this situation--with his prosecutorial powers resting on a piece of paper, left behind by a resigned Asst. AG (Comey)--and nobody, and I mean nobody, in the government giving a crap for the rule of the law--and with good prosecutors getting purged and forced to resign all over the map (occurring all the while he was trying to prosecute this), he's going to try to get the acting president on the stand?

I think he did what he could--nailed the obvious obstructer of justice--and you may have noticed how many times, in his recent sentencing filing on Libby, he mentioned how grave this matter was BECAUSE it was tied to the vice president's office. He's clearly sending a signal to the political establishment that Cheney is the one who should be going to jail, that Libby threw enough "dust in his eyes" to prevent him nailing Cheney, and that this out-of-control junta is a political problem that cannot be solved by one, severely hemmed in prosecutor.

It's like asking, why doesn't Congress impeach these REPEATED felons, or why they don't stop the war? The Washington DC establishment is FILTHY with this war and its associated fascist policies, and, until WE get our power back--which I think has to start with getting rid of, or getting around, the rigged voting machines--nothing much is going to change.

I did expect Fitzgerald to issue a grand jury report, possibly naming some unindicted co-conspirators (Cheney). His filings point that way, but he didn't do it. God knows what pressure he is under. I don't think you have to figure he's dishonest or bought, in order to understand why he did NOT issue a report (or put Cheney on the stand). Catch any TV news lately? The political establishment has closed ranks--around the war and around this regime. He would be standing out there all on his own. Things are so bad that he felt he had to ANSWER arguments, at length, that HE was conducting a "political" prosecution. Rove lives! (--and don't ask me why Rove wasn't called to the stand--he was a blatant, known operative of this conspiracy--or you'll get another chapter, with some thoughts about domestic spying, purging of USA's, and what-all the Plame and Brewster-Jennings outings may really have been about).

[deutsey]

13. Cheney's above the law n/t

[Blackhatjack]

14. Fitz was focusing on proving Libby's perjury and obstruction charges...

... and if Fitz had called Cheney as the government's witness, Cheney would have definitely tried to bring in the issue of whether Plame was a covert agent and that Libby's actions did not constitute a violation of the criminal statute applying to outing a covert agent. Once that door was opened by the government by calling him, the Libby defense attorneys were prepared to turn the trial into a circus of witnesses and evidence that would not otherwise be admissible on those very issues.

By not calling Cheney, the Judge properly ruled that there was no basis for allowing evidence and testimony as to whether Plame was covert and whether Libby violated the statute prohibiting the outing of a covert agent. The evidence needed to prove Libby lied and that it obstructed the investigation was all the Court would allow, and that put Libby at a decided disadvantage.

The Libby pre-trial threat that they would call Cheney was never real. If Cheney had been called in all likelihood he would have drove a stake through Libby's heart to save his own behind. All he woudl have had to do was testify I never asked Libby to testify falsely or do anything illegal. Who would Libby call to impeach that testimony? No one available other than Libby, and at that stage he had decided not to testify himself.

The practical outcome of not calling Cheney to testify at trial is that Fitz has kept what he knows under wraps, and his powder dry for use if a case can be made against Cheney. Plus, if Libby is facing an active prison sentence and no pardon is forthcoming from Bush, Libby has something to bargain with in agreeing to cooperate with Fitz for a more lenient sentence.