Hugh Hewitt just spoke with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on his radio show. O'Donnell has asked whether Cheney was drunk at the time of the shooting, asserting that the vice-president may have been impaired by alcohol when he shot Harry Whittington last weekend while on a Texas hunting trip. "Every lawyer I've talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting," asserted O'Donnell. The vice-president indicated in his interview with Brit Hume on Fox News today that he had had only a single beer while having lunch the day that Whittington was shot.

O'Donnell asserted on Hugh's show that he is highly skeptical that Cheney had only one beer, simply because that Cheney is not a believable character. He then went on to outrageously compare Cheney's behavior with Ted Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick, suggesting that Cheney was delaying the announcement so that he could conceal the fact that he was drunk, as O'Donnell alleges Kennedy did the night of the Chappaquiddick disaster. O'Donnell had no facts, and no suggestion of credible facts, to back up his bizarre assertions about Cheney.

Hugh asked O'Donnell directly and repeatedly how many lawyers he had talked to who believe that Cheney was attempting to conceal significant impairment by alcohol, what type of lawyers they are, and whether he (Hewitt) could speak to at least one of those lawyers to verify what O'Donnell was asserting. O'Donnell would not give Hugh a name, and he could only say that he had spoken with some "criminal" lawyers on Monday, and also with some lawyer members of his family. Hugh managed to extract from O'Donnell that he allegedly talked to "five" lawyers on Monday. No names given, nor any other information about their expertise in such matters.

Each time that Hugh pressed O'Donnell for some corroboration of his suggestion he became more incensed and outraged. His vague answers about who he talked to, and when he talked to them, spoke volumes about his credibility.

Hugh is taking the stand that he does not believe that O'Donnell talked to any lawyers who seriously believe, or have any credible evidence to believe, that Cheney was drunk. I am inclined to agree. O'Donnell simply was not credible. It is possible that members of O'Donnell's family, who are lawyers, do believe that Cheney was drunk. But who are they? What information do they have that we or law enforcement officials do not? What are their qualifications that would allow them to credibly come to such a conclusion? What type of lawyers are they? Who did they talk to? What evidence did they see? How did they evaluate that evidence? Why can't we hear from them so that we can assess their competence to come to such conclusions?

If O'Donnell won't tell us who the lawyers are then perhaps he might steer us to those Texas officials that the lawyers would have had to have talked to, in order to obtain information and evidence that Cheney was drunk, so that we can have access to the same information that they must have if O'Donnell's assertion is accurate. I rather doubt that information will be forthcoming from Mr. O'Donnell.

Until the answers to at least the above questions are forthcoming then Lawrence O'Donnell should not be given the slightest shred of credibility on this matter.