The Gamut

The New York Times > Washington > Cheney Reportedly Interviewed in Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name

Vice President Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by federal prosecutors who asked whether he knew of anyone at the White House who had improperly disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, people who have been involved in official discussions about the case said on Friday.

Mr. Cheney was also asked about conversations with senior aides, including his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, according to people officially informed about the case. In addition, those people said, Mr. Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name the officer. It was not clear how Mr. Cheney responded to the prosecutors' questions.

.....

It is not clear when or where Mr. Cheney was interviewed, but he was not questioned under oath and he has not been asked to appear before the grand jury, people officially informed about the case said. His willingness to answer questions was voluntary and apparently followed Mr. Bush's repeated instructions to aides to cooperate with the investigation.

So he wasn't under oath, and he won't be subpoenaed. Alrighty then.

So basically, they asked him if he had any secrets that he hasn't given up yet, and would he like to do so now. Why not subpoena him? Make him say anything that he has to say under penalty of perjury. Maybe he has no information at all, but so what! Maybe he has, and maybe he's lying, and maybe he should be compelled to give it up.

Sheesh! Why is this so hard?

Oh, yeah, and about this part:

The decision by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to seek private legal counsel is routine for high-level officials when they become involved, even tangentially, in legal issues unrelated to their official duties.

No, it isn't. And if they are involved, then it is related to their official duties. And if they are not involved, they only need the counsel if they are targets.

Permalink

|