« Mitt Romney Takes A Page Out Of Joe Biden's Campaign-Launch Playbook | Main | A Bit More on Mitt Romney and Henry Ford »
February 14, 2007
Cheney Won't Testify for Libby. Suprise! Not.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — Lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges surprised the courtroom on Tuesday by saying that they would rest their case this week and do so without putting on the stand either Mr. Libby or Vice President Dick Cheney.
The only people who could have been surprised by this decision were the very same media types who gave us the run-up to the Iraq War. It was clear after day-2 of the trial that putting Cheney and Libby on the stand would be disastrous.
What was Cheney to testify about? All the heady, mind-bendingly crucial issues Libby was working on in July 2003 when he was also carrying out Cheney's orders to dump on Wilson? How could Cheney remember all those many things so long ago with so much on his plate? And just exactly what was Cheney up to when he was directing Libby to lay the ground work for giving Wilson the business . . . could it be covering up the manipulation of intelligence? The points? Cheney's memory is awfully good. But his credibility isn't.
So unless Cheney didn't remember much from 2003, it seems to me that he'd be proving Fitzgerald's legal point in this case that Libby lied -- particularly given how the first couple of administration witnesses testified to how Libby was carrying Cheney's water on this issue and it was, as Fitzgerald framed the testimony, an important one.
As for Libby testifying, what was he going to say? "Gee, now I remember, what you heard on those 8 hours of grand jury tapes was wrong." Or would it be, "Yeah, I'm still pretty confused . . . ."
I guess the NYTimes reporters would say, "but Libby's defense lawyers said they'd be putting Cheney on the stand and Libby would likely testify." Go to any criminal trial in D.C. superior court, where assaults and drug dealing are prosecuted every day. You'll hear wonderful opening statements by brilliant defense lawyers who'll describe all the witness they expect to testify to their client's innocence. Then wait to see what happens. You'll be shocked to learn, NYTimes, that it rarely plays out that way.
The lede in the NYTimes story reveals more about how dangerously uninformed the media is than anything about the Libby trial.
Posted by shertaugh at February 14, 2007 2:34 AM
Comments
The media generally disgust me, and I used to be one of them. I covered a trial in South Caroline in the early 70s. (Ob-gyn accused of coercing welfare patients into being sterilized before he would agree to deliver their babies). The trial lasted two weeks. On the last day, a network reporter (you would know her, since she rode a certain presidential candidate's coat tail into national news coverage) breezed into town, watched a couple of hours, then left after getting a print reporter to promise to phone her with what happened. That night she gave an authoritative report on the trial. It was a real shame she never even saw the damned thing.
Posted by: Mark at February 14, 2007 8:15 AM