Judge says Cheney might have to testify
Golden man appears to win fight to depose sitting vice president
By Julie Poppen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published March 11, 2008 at 9:29 a.m.
Updated March 11, 2008 at 11:33 p.m.
Vice President Dick Cheney likely will have to answer questions under oath from a Golden man who says he was wrongly arrested for criticizing the administration's policies on Iraq.
Denver U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer did not rule Tuesday but suggested that Cheney could be deposed in a written format with questions posed by a court reporter for no more than two hours.
Shaffer said he can mandate the terms of the deposition to address concerns from U.S. Justice Department attorney James Gilligan that Steven Howards is pursuing Cheney because of his celebrity status. Shaffer said he would issue a written ruling later.
"I can subdue the thrill," Shaffer said. "The only person who might get a thrill is the court reporter."
Howards filed a federal lawsuit against five Secret Service agents in October 2006, claiming his arrest four months earlier in Beaver Creek was in retaliation for speaking his mind about the war in Iraq, in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.
A harassment charge against him was dropped. The agents provided conflicting accounts under oath of what happened during the incident.
Gilligan said he was opposed to any deposition of the vice president, arguing that high-ranking government officials can be deposed only under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
Howards' attorney, David Lane, said after the hearing that the judge's potential solution was better than no deposition, but not by much.
Lane complained that Cheney's responses would be "scripted" by lawyers and that Lane would not be able to ask follow-up questions.
Meanwhile, the judge upheld a motion filed by the defendants to ban the distribution of their videotaped depositions. Shaffer agreed that the images - even if faces were obscured - could be manipulated and spread online, thus violating the defendants' privacy rights.
Shaffer also said written transcripts already are available. Lane said he would appeal the ruling.
Howards, 55, was in Beaver Creek with his family when he spotted Cheney.
Lane said Howards approached Cheney and told him, "I think your policies in Iraq are disgusting." Howards said he may have lightly touched Cheney's arm. A Secret Service agent called it more of a jab.
Howards then walked away. Ten minutes later, he was approached by a Secret Service agent who asked if he assaulted Cheney. Howards refused to answer. He was taken to the Eagle County Jail and held for three hours.
The Eagle County district attorney dismissed a charge of midemeanor harassment in July 2006.
poppenj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5176
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
March 11, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackwoehr writes:
The Hague might be a better venue :-)
March 11, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
What? Federal agents allegedy being self-righteous and punishing someone who disagrees with their boss?! No . . . that would NEVER happen . . . The Bush / Cheney machine is so known for its reasoned humanity and measured response to anything or anyone who disagrees . . .
March 11, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
He's lucky that Cheney didn't shoot him in the face
March 11, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
If Howard had assaulted Cheney, do you think the Secret Service would just let him walk away?
Although Howard has a solid case against the five SS agents who later assaulted him and had him falsely arrested, a case like this takes patience. Wait for Bush to leave office and then load up for bear.
Cheney gave the orders to have Howard arrested for spoiling his delivery of the usual pack-o-lies. Sue him, too. It'll come out.
But wait until Bush can no longer issue blanket pardons for lying to investigators and the court. Remember the deal with "Scooter" Libby.
March 11, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
OhBrother writes:
watch out man, Cheney has shot people over less...no jail time, this guy better be happy the secrect service handled it and not ol' gun slinger
March 11, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Given Lane's history of choosing clients, Ward Churchill, a Cherry Creek school teacher who was discriminated against a middle school student who didn't agree with him politically, Hell's Angels, and the Columbus Day Parade disruptors; the fact that his clients seem to be intolerant jerks; the fact that his cases seem to end up in the newspapers; and some of the screwy things Lane has said to defend his clients; I figure that Howards must be guilty or else he wouldn't have hired Lane.
Which shows that I should not be on the jury because I read the papers enough to know Lane's history. Which is probably why Lane does what he does. I'm guessing he wants a jury which doesn't read the newspapers and keeps itself ignorant.
March 11, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
earlybird writes:
"A federal judge today kept alive the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney may have to answer questions under oath regarding an alleged assault in Colorado two years ago."
OMG, Cheney under oath???? That would be a first!! Even Congress hasn't pulled that one off, what makes these guys think they'll be able to.....
March 11, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
so you think a guy is guilty based on the attorney that he hires? And you call yourself "freethinker"? LOL
March 11, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
A complete waste of time.
"...wants to be able to grill the Vice President..."
Cheney is not on trial, a disrespectful jerk is. Act aggressive around the SS while they are doing their jobs and that's what happens.
March 11, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Correction: A disrespectful jerk was. This new suit still will go nowhere.
March 11, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
Hey Spencer I was thinking that exact same thing lol
March 11, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
I can't wait till they put him on the stand.Wonder what little fairy tale he will tell.Oh by the way maybe we can get some answer about that little shooting that happened a few years back.I hope he can answer all the questions without his pacemaker giving out.Also what happened to freedom of speech,also freedom of your constitional rights to protest.Also don't forget for the people by the people,this is our government.That was taught to me in civics.But then maybe I am to intellectual for my own good.What do you think.
March 11, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
What a relief! Conservative clowns finally showed up...
First, we have a lock-step, closed-minded, "freethinker" who wouldn't dare dip toe outside the box constructed by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for him. If he is ever accused then he will hire a lawyer who has only defended the innocent. Presumably, his lawyer will be a fresh graduate who just passed the bar exam.
Then temurlan, in typical fashion of the quintessential dope, cannot get his facts straight. He did issue one correction when he bothered to read the article and realized his foot was esophageally parked. But the lawsuit already has traction and has gone somewhere. A judge is ruling on the litigation.
Cheney and his thugs stand a chance of being held accountable for trampling the constitution, committing crimes, and the usual Cheneyesque thuggery.
March 11, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Three truths:
1. Since Cheney is a Republican, the Democrats hate him.
2. If the guy was a Dem, the Republicans would hate him.
3. It is NOT acceptable to physically engage the vice-president or president.
If this guy in fact touched the vice-president no matter how lightly while saying how much he hated the administration's policies, he should be jailed for just plain stupidity.
When I worked in the nation's capitol, everybody including staff were sealed off from the vice-president and the president when they entered the buildings. Only when approached, were we allowed to go near them. The president was a Democrat at the time. I know people dislike this guy, but don't let your emotions get in the way of better judgment.
No matter who wins the '08 election, somebody will want to kill the next president...yes, that includes your guy or gal. The Secret Service has a job to do, and that includes keeping these officials out of harms way.
March 11, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
I'll bet the idiot doesn't answer a single question. Either pardon by GW or cry exec privilage
March 12, 2008
5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
hmmmm...I smell a perjury trap.
First, the rationale the judge used in permitting Cheney to be deposed is that two witnesses (both secret Service agents) gave conflicting accounts of the incident--meaning only one of the two was unwilling to perjure himself--and a third witness is available, the Vice-President. It's reasonable for the judge to get the account of the third witness.
It seems unlikely Cheney would support the account more favorable to Steven Howards, probably allowing Howards to win his suit against the Secret Service. That means he'll likely support the SS agent who supported the "harassment" account.
If Howards's lawyer, David Lane, has some other evidence (3rd-party cell-phone video that showed up later?) contradicting Cheney's sworn testimony, Cheney could then be charged with lying to a Federal court.
Doesn't seem all that likely, because perjury traps are a pretty common and well-understood tactic, but still, they seem to work best against the most arrogant...
March 12, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
This will be like the last time that someone from this administration was asked to testify. Bush said yes but not under oath. Which means everything will be a lie so why bother?
March 12, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
hahaha -
How very typical of the Republicants to whine that somehow touching the Veep justifies an assault charge, but then the same "disagree-with-us-and-you're-a-commie" whiners complain that people are "too soft" and can't take a little assertiveness.
When's the last time you filed an assault charge because someone touched you on the arm to make a point?
Typical of this administration - disagree with us, and we'll lock you away.
The most troublesome part is that there are still idiots on here who defend the erosion of the U.S. Constitution.
March 12, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
roland writes:
bropous: to reitterate what was posted ealrier, if this guy had "laid hands" on the V.P., damn right he would have been on the ground and then locked up immediately. As is, There are so many neo-con statements in your post, it's difficult to sort through. "anti-freedom cause" my foot! and, yes, Bush and Cheney have committed NUMEROUS crimes. PERIOD!
This "code Pink fruitboy" had every right to express his opinion, as long as it's in a civilized manner. Bush lovers seem to have no problem depriving someone of their constitutional rights, however.
March 12, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
If the accuser did anything other than lightly tap Cheney, the Secret Service would have tackled him so hard, he'd still be in traction. That's their job. The fact that the Secret Service agents disagree with each other tells me that there might not have even been a tap.
Cheney's an arrogant jerk who had this guy arreested for having the audacity to question the great and powerful Cheney. Now that a judge has said it's OK to question the Veep (What a concept: The Veep is answerable to someone), Cheney will probably arrange to have the judge fired or retired.
Go David Lane!
March 12, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I suppose Cheney could always invite the judge on a hunting trip.
March 12, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
why are there so many apologists for the incompetent and unethical actions of this administration?