If Cheney did testify, I say, so what? What would be the point? Trial testimony clearly shows Richard Armitage as the original leaker, and not simply mentioning Plame casually a time or two, but "several times and sometimes in explicit terms" to Woodward.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/12/D8N8A5Q80.html
This happened in mid June of 2003, clearly prior to what happened in regard to Libby wherein Fitz is attacking like a rabid dog to prove Libby lied about something. Meanwhile, multiple inconsistencies are clearly present in the testimonies of other people before the Grand Jury, but I guess Fitzgerald does not care about them, or even the original leaker, Richard Armitage. So we are left to assume Fitzgerald does not care at all about the crime he was given to investigate, that he has yet to determine was actually a crime, but instead has worked feverishly to build a case against one of many people that have inconsistent testomonies about what they said and who they said it to years ago. This is truly incredible.
For now, let us look at one huge inconsistency, that of Andrea Mitchell, who claimed lots of people in the media knew about Plame:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/12/D8N89ABG0.html
"Novak and Pincus are two of several journalists whom Libby's attorneys planned to call. These lawyers also are fighting hard to force NBC foreign affairs reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify about why she said that Plame's identity was "widely known" even before the Novak column was published.
Mitchell has since recanted those comments and has said that she cannot explain them.
A key dispute in the case involves Mitchell's NBC colleague, Tim Russert. Libby says Russert told him in July 2003 that "all the reporters know" Plame worked for the CIA. Russert said that never happened because he didn't know who Plame was at the time."
I'd like to know how Andrea Mitchell can recant something that she said in very likely sincerity? When she said it the first time, she had no reason to lie, but when she recanted, she does have a reason to lie, so my conclusion is her first statement that lots of people knew is probably true, and moreover, it is fully logical and expected, given how they all talk to each other about this kind of stuff behind the scenes. And I think Russert has ample reason to lie. It further explains why he seemed unusually tuned into the Plame story, and unusually more biased than his normal everyday bias.
I will admit my bias, but I would not trust Russert, or any of the rest of the media people involved in this any further than I could throw them. I have also felt from the very beginning that Woodward knows alot more than he is saying, because of the simple fact that he is not his usual bias self, but instead played down this affair from the beginning. He probably blabbed his information from Armitage to several people, and therefore would like to see this affair die a quiet death, so he could go back to playing his games with other issues.
Now, incredibly, the judge does not wish to allow the defense to question Mitchell about her inconsistent statements!
"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Mitchell can be called as a witness but he wouldn't allow Libby's attorneys to ask about her inconsistent statements."
Simple question, why not? Talk about a stacked case by the judge. I guess only Fitz can ask Libby about his inconsistent statements. Now I get it. I hope the jury has a brain and can see through all of this nonsense.
I think the proceedings continue to demonstrate how stupid this whole investigation has become, and it continues to make Fitzgerald look like an incompetent partisan investigator, in my opinion of course. Again, he is building a case to throw somebody in jail about what he said about who he told what about a crime that has not been shown to be a crime, meanwhile the perpetrator of the crime that was not a crime continues to go scot free, and Fitzgerald shows absolutely no interest in the original crime or the perpetrator of the crime.
