Josh Marshall's Question About Libby's Statement

Josh posits this over at Talking Points Memo.

Here's a question. If I understand this right, Scooter Libby has sworn under oath that Vice President Cheney told him that President Bush had authorized him to disclose classified information.

Let's set aside the whole question of whether the president can do that or whether there's a specific procedure he has to follow. Just set that issue aside.

If it isn't true that Vice President Cheney told him that, then Vice President Cheney must know that Libby has again perjured himself. I would think the Vice President has an affirmative duty to come forward and say that Libby's testimony is false.

I just overheard Jeff Toobin on CNN saying that the White House will probably be able to squelch this story simply by 'no commenting' it. But can we not fairly draw the inference from Cheney's silence that he did in fact tell Libby this?

By a slightly looser logic -- and one in which sworn testimony doesn't come into play in the same fashion -- doesn't President Bush's silence tell us that Cheney was telling the truth?

The link is a courtesy. I lifted the whole post for you.

OK, first off there are two question marks so there are two questions instead of one. You get a bonus folks.

To both questions I would answer yes. Cheney's silence means he can't or won't refute Libby's sworn testimony. Bush's silence also would indicate Cheney's silence means Libby is correct. And the truth is, they are all better off keeping their big mouths shut because this hole is deep enough. Do you suppose they carry cheat sheets to keep track of the web of lies they've told?