"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the perjury case against his former chief of staff, a special prosecutor said in a court filing Wednesday.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald suggested Cheney would be a logical government witness because he could authenticate notes he jotted on a July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion piece by a former U.S. ambassador critical of the Iraq war.
Fitzgerald said Cheney's 'state of mind' is 'directly relevant' to whether I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the vice president's former top aide, lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned about CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity and what he subsequently told reporters.
Libby 'shared the interests of his superior and was subject to his direction,' the prosecutor wrote. 'Therefore, the state of mind of the vice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue.'"
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
AP Wire | 05/24/2006 | Cheney may be called in CIA leak case
AP Wire | 05/24/2006 | Cheney may be called in CIA leak case:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Alright - so here's the thing:
I'm not saying this is what is going on, but what would it look like if the Oval Office were trying to put Dick in play?
First, you'd see a number of stories and leaks about the various ways that Dick is connected with Libby's actions. Just to get the storyline out there. Hell within the last 12 months we've been through a real sea change. A year ago no major media source openly talked about Cheney as directly involved in ANYTHING Plame related. Today the question is only how involved was he.
Second, you have your PR guy matter-of-factly mention in public that it just might happen that the VP is so deeply tied into the crime that he may have to be called as a witness for the prosecution. And NOT take the opportunity to defend the office of the VP in anyway?!?
From today's press gaggle:
Q Yes, Tony. Patrick Fitzgerald yesterday indicated that they would like to speak, they would like to have the Vice President come and talk in defense of Mr. Libby since the state of mind of the Vice President was relevant to Libby's actions since Libby was subject to his direction. Would the White House be prepared to allow the Vice President to testify --
MR. SNOW: Number one, I'm not going to -- number one, I'm not sure you characterized properly what was -- the stories were that he'd released information, he was interested in that line of questioning, and that there may be some thought of bringing the Vice President to trial.
*********************
This, as a far as I know, is the first very public (however lowkey) acknowledgement by the Oval Office that the VP is deeply involved in a criminal case, even leaving aside the question of his individual guilt or innocence.
Circa 970 days left in the Bush administration. How many times can the question of whether the VP should resign because of the plan of actions being carried out by his chief of staff before he has to resign?
Again, my DB on this is pretty low at this point, but I'd wager that we're going to find out an answer to this question thanks to the Oval Office.
Some intrepid AP reporter has already picked up the thought and has started running:
"Experts Says [sic] Cheney Can't Avoid Testifying"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060525/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak;_ylt=At1NtnFY93TT68vi2rQXy.SyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Post a Comment