The New York Times Misreads Cheney's Non-Witness Status

February 14, 2007

In The New York Times news story on Valentine's Day, the NYT reporters had this to say about Libby's defense lawyers not calling Cheney or Libby to the stand: "The decision could be viewed as a sign that Mr. Libby's lawyers are confident that the prosecution failed to make its case."

This is the kind of vague, unsourced speculation that drives astute readers of the NYT crazy. Yes, it could be viewed that way, which implies that some informed people are viewing it that way.

But the reality is almost no one who is covering the trial views it that way. Where did the NYT reporters come up with such a wild assertion? Who knows?

The reality is that the prosecution's case is so strong, Libby's defense team thought he would probably end up contradicting his own prior statements and that he would not necessarily be a sympathetic witness to the jury.

As for Cheney, were he to testify under oath, he would open himself up to legal perjury.

The defense team had nothing to gain from either Libby or Cheney testifying, given the strong case against Libby on the perjury counts, and even more to lose.

Where the NYT came up with the odd notion that not having Libby or Cheney testify was the sign of a weak government case is beyond anyone following the case, unless you were reporters who were reflecting the spin of Libby's defense lawyers.

But The New York Times would never fall for Bushevik spin, would it?

Uh, do monkeys eat bananas?

For ongoing updates on the PlameGate investigation, please read http://www.buzzflash.com.