This could get interesting!
I wonder – will he refuse to answer any question on “national security” grounds? And if so, will the judge simply order the courtroom cleared and the testimony produced in camera? And if so . . . will Cheney cooperate?
Has any sitting president or vice-president ever testified in court before?
Well first, from the article:
I don’t think they’re going to get much ‘cooperation’ out of him, unless of course he’s decided that Llibby is going to take the fall for this and throws him to the wolves to save his own hide. The administration has gone out of its way to say anything official that it could get legally nailed for, and I don’t think Cheney is going to suddenly change this.
Crap.
The administration has gone out of its way to not say anything official that it could get legally nailed for, and I don’t think Cheney is going to suddenly change this.
But what if he’s asked a potentially incriminating question? A vice-president might plead national security, but he could not plead the Fifth Amendment; to do so would be legally proper, but politically inconceivable.
Mr. Cheney, so far, has been obsessed with secrecy, and he has spent a lot of time smearing anyone who disagrees with him. I doubt that we’ll hear anything new from the vice president, unless he tries to pin the whole thing on the Democrats. Many people will be hanging on his every word, but they are wasting their time. Mr. Cheney holds a black belt in saying nothing at great length.
That’s fine for a press conference. But trial lawyers don’t let you do that, and he will be testifying under oath, liable for prosecution for perjury and, in that respect, anxious (I should think) to avoid any comparison with Clinton.
I was wondering when y’all were going to pick up on this.
This will be one big non-even, just like this whole trial has been. What does Cheney care about what’s “politically inconceivable”? His political career ends in 2008, and I’m sure he’ll be happy to get back to Haliburton or wherever so he can make piles of money again. They’ll ask him a few question about meetings he had with Libby, and you’ll hear a lot of “I don’t recall the details”.
What’s slightly more inetersting is that Joe Wilson is trying to squirm out of being called to testify. What’s up with that? You’d think he’d love the opportunity to tell his story again.
What “Great Crime” was Fitzgerald investigating? Oh, yeah, Dick Armitage…
what has Armitage been charged with??? You’d think if a major federal criminal investigation were run because of his actions he ought to be charged, right? NO CRIME INVOLVED.
I think you’re just going to see a bunch of legal crap. Cheney’s lawyer will have his hand on the ‘objection’ buzzer from the word go, so they can stop any line of questioning that might seem to be bad for him. Cheney will suddenly forget most of what really happened, and be just unclear enough to make it seem like he, and whoever else he wants, really didn’t know enough of the details to have done anything wrong.
I’m wondering if theyre going to put Cheney to the test, try and make him use the ‘national security’ card just to put it to the test. I’m also wondering if anyone will actually try to get Cheney to say something that might incriminate himself. It’s gotta be tempting.
He wasn’t the only “leak” (if you can call this a “leak”), since Libby seems to have gotten the word out independently, even if he wasn’t first to do so. But the trial isn’t about the “leak”, but about abstruction of justice. The cable news channels will go bonkers over this, but no one outside the beltway is going to care.
It amazes me how often people scoff that a politician could forget anything. Were any of you to be questioned in minute detail about the occurences of your life Jan 15th 1989 (To pick a totally arbitrary date) how well could you answer?
Well, here’s what CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) has to say about that. FWIW.
Perhaps, if he wanted a future life in politics, however, Vice President Cheney has been abundantly clear, Jan 20, 2009 is the start of his retirement. Hell, I hope he pleads the fifth on every question, just to piss people like you off.
Based on this, I’d say he wriggled out of it by being a cooperative witness – IOW, he cut a deal with the prosecutors. Happens all the time. Just ask Sammy Gravano. Just because Gravano was guilty doesn’t mean Gotti was innocent.
A private citizen could not answer well. But a public official spends every day in office in expectation that he/she might be questioned about it later; “I forget” is rarely a credible excuse.
Oh, I hope he does! Nothing could embarrass the Administration more! 
I though the prosecutor and defence counsel were the only ones who could actually object in court. Cheney could try to get the subpoena quashed though.
So, Hero of the Left, Bill Clinton, wasn’t credible? Oh, wait, where are those damn Rose Law Firm billing records, Hillary? A WhiteHouse closet! Forgotten! ya’ don’t say…
But he’s decided to cooperate – see the article linked in the OP.