Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« NoKo Nuke Deal? | Main | Keep Hope Alive! »

February 13, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834334d7f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Love A Surprise!:

» No Fitzmas All Around from The Strata-Sphere
Ugh, looks like the Libby is going to be a bust for left and right. No Cheney, no Libby, no Mitchell, no Joe Wilson, no Valerie Plame, no Kristof. Nothing. Libby is going to (wisely) rest his case because his team has more than established su... [Read More]

» Fun With The New York Times from Ace of Spades HQ
Just One Minute is having fun covering the Scooter Libby trial, but he seems to have the most fun pointing out the egregious errors about the most basic fundamentals of the case committed on a daily basis by the NYT's... [Read More]

Comments

JJ

Don't you realize journalism is show business! And the first rule of show business is never look behind the curtain and kill that vital willing suspension of disbelief!

clarice

Do you make a practice of wrestling paraplegics, TM? Okay, so he is a big reporter for the "paper of record". Does that mean you expect him to actually read it?

nittypig

Well it's a little bit of a surprise given Ari's testimony:

"You were asked about Mr. Pincus at the Grand Jury?"
"Yes."
"And you testified you didn't mention Valerie Wilson to him?"
"Yes."
"And you haven't been prosecuted for perjury?" "No."

centralcal

The second best part of JOM is the guffaws and belly laughs we get, often at the expense of our "intrepid" media.

sammy small

Why doesn't Walton just declare the trial over in Libby's favor, or let Wells continue to impeach reporters. We're reaching the point of diminishing returns here.

Other Tom

Great Scott. I think it was almost fifty years ago that I read a piece by H.L. Mencken in which he made the point that the more you know personally about a given topic, the more you recognize how poorly and inaccurately it is reported in the press. This NYTimes effort, along with the truly laughable shenanigans on Hardball, drive that point home as forcefully as it can be done. Anybody who has been following this thing on any of the blogs--even the moonbat ones--can see how pathetic these people are. And I agree that Appuzo is a very rare exception. Astonishing...

Ralph L.

Azaghal, according to my Funk & Wagnalls, accommodation has 2 "m"'s.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Where's Eckenrode? Does he have to hang around the courthouse? Do media folk see him?

With Walton sick. And, the jury sent home;

Is Eckenrobe up t'marra? Disrobed, then?

So walton has a cold, huh? For tissues, he can use Fitz' snot rags of a case.

Anonymous Liberal

Let's take the Way Back Machine to October 2005.

michael scanlon

Simple question: Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself? Is it because he has a visceral fear of Paddy Fitz rendering new meaning to the term “skinned alive in public?” Or is there some other reason Libby doesn't want to tell the jury about his faulty memory?

Anonymous Liberal

Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?

Probably because he'll get picked apart on cross and end up perjuring himself further.

clarice

It's a risk he need not take. The prosecution case is swirling down the white porcelain throne and the jury already heard him before the GJ (another Fitz blunder). By all accounts he sounded sincere and as though he was trying to be helpful.

nittypig

Taking the stand always increases the risk to the defendant. Something could go wrong on cross. The jury may just decide it doesn't like you. If you think things are going well enough that youll win, you shouldn't endanger that.

Jane

Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?

Where did you hear he ever decided to take the stand, and where did you hear he decided not to?

No defendant should ever take the stand unless he thinks it is necessary. And defendants rarely make that decision in advance. I don't think we have any idea if Libby is going to take the stand at this point.

Ralph L.

M. S., perhaps he doesn't need to take the stand to walk scoot-free.

Anonymous Liberal

The prosecution case is swirling down the white porcelain throne

Clarice, what are you going to say if he's convicted? (which by the way, seems more likely than not) Will your head explode?

SteveMG

Dammit, once Fitzgerald determined that there was no violation of the law (or law) when Plame's name was leaked, he needed to close up shop.

This is a farce, it really is; with these witnesses not remembering conversations or who was where and what was up or down. Person A saying he told Person B but Person B not remembering it but thinks it was Person C.

Pull the plug on this Judge Walton.

Javani

""Simple question: Can somebody please explain to me why Libby has only recently decided NOT to take the stand to defend himself?""

How do you know he only "recently" did this? The opinion probably changed throughout time and the trial. Your narrative is NOT an adequate substitute for dislike how the trial has gone.

"Is it because he has a visceral fear of Paddy Fitz rendering new meaning to the term “skinned alive in public?”"

If he's winning he, in Wells' opinion, he won't testify. Why risk it? Did you read his rambling performance in front of the GJ?

""Or is there some other reason Libby doesn't want to tell the jury about his faulty memory?""

Maybe he figures if he doesn't testify, it will stir up conspiratorial thinking with the moonbats and make him a more popular, and better paid, speaker for a touring debate with Corn or someone like that. Got to think of the future!!!

Plus he doesn't have to tell anyone about his "faulty" memory - there's nothing to correct that wasn't explained, adequately or not, in the GJ transcript. If he testifies now...he might slip and give a third story!

Sara (Squiggler

I have been in and out today, thought I'd caught up, but two things -- the jury has been sent home?????? and Libby Team has announced Libby won't take stand????? When?

sbw

What if hypotheticals were illegal?

Jane

Sara,

I've been here all day and I don't think either of those things are confirmed. But I have a faulty memory.

Larry

"...the more you recognize how poorly and inaccurately it is reported in the press."
Posted by: Other Tom | February 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM In every instance in my adult life (I'm 66) where I've had knowledge of the subject, the media has either misreported it entirely or missed the point completely; put the emPHASis on the wrong sylLAble, as Mom used to say.

cathyf

sbw -- HEH!

Jane

Here you go - from FDL:

We have released teh VP as a witness. Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow teh advise.

Javani

Anonymous liberal:

""Clarice, what are you going to say if he's convicted? (which by the way, seems more likely than not) Will your head explode?""

I'm worried about your head. Your statement is couched in parentheses, then an overly demure introduction, and next the wishy washy word "seems" in this context. This phrasing proactively establishes a feather bed for you to fall upon if no conviction occurs, as you privately fear. That's fine, but then you break mood and talk about Clarice, the bearer of uncomfortable dissent, and her exploding head.

Take care.

Javani

""We have released teh VP as a witness.""

As much as I wanted to hear from Cheney and wilson I can't fathom what they could have added to the issues being tried. But no Gregory?


"Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow teh advise."

Wife calling the shots, or designated jury observer??

Ralph L.

Jane, I didn't know Wells was blogging at FDL. Has anyone told Libby that?

JM Hanes

sbw:

"What if hypotheticals were illegal?"

LOL! Multiply case loads to the infinite power and bring our judicial system to a standstill?

Christopher Fotos

Latest from professor Kim:

Ted Wells just announced that he and William Jeffers will not call the Vice President to testify. Libby also will not testify. The defense is prepared to rest tomorrow after entering evidence that includes newspaper articles that will impeach Tim Russert's testimony. The judge expects that closing arguments will begin Tuesday.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

THe "does he or doesn't he question" can also be answered with Ted Wells MESSING with Fitz' head. Walton? His head is being messed with by a head cold.

And, since Walton, to some measure, is influenced by the papers he reads. Just like Rehnquist was. Which explain why some people, who'd you expect to steer one way; either slam on the brakes, or swirve off the road. Into the on-coming headlights of what the DC crowd thinks. Every morning when they read their newspapers.

Seems Walton will face both Frank Rich and Howie Kurtz now supporting Libby as "perhaps it was just an honest mistake? Since nobody did anything on purpose."

It all depends on how Walton "reads" the WaPo's EXTREME DESIRE to just get "move.on folks" into a ligitimate enterprise.

clarice

No Eckenrode.

Jane

So Wells says he's got a video that will refute Russert.

Jim E.

The defense has only 60-90 minutes left to their case? And no David Gregory? No Joe Wilson? No Cliff May? No Marty Peretz?

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

maryrose

I think Gregory should take the stand... When is Eckenrode testifying? Any other witnesses tomorrow?

clarice

And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

Jane

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Not according to Imus

Bill in AZ

Anyone know what the tape is that Wells has? Does Fitz know?

Pofarmer

Dammit, once Fitzgerald determined that there was no violation of the law (or law) when Plame's name was leaked, he needed to close up shop.

Absolutely.

Dan S

"And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

Posted by: clarice "

F: No, really, my witnesses really are remembering it right THIS time!

Sara (Squiggler

And Fitz is sitting there helpless.
What's his rebuttal evidence?
LOL

Seems his on evidence so far has been a bunch of newspaper articles that he takes to be more probitive to Libby's state of mind than Libby's briefers/schedulers/assistants, etc.

windansea

Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

I always knew you were just another troll :)

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The jury will be grateful! Wells will be their hero for shutting down the mishigas.

Waltoon doesn't have much recovery room, either. Since Libby doesn't have to take the stand. Blacks can't rewrite law as much as they're trying to rewrite history.

And, Wells must think he's seen enough money on the table to CALL. In poker? That means the ace poker player sees little, ahead, to add "TO THE POT." CARDS COME OUT NEXT WEEK, TUESDAY.

The Jury is gonna be relieved to know this!

Besides, what's the jury like? Could anyone worse than Frank Rich be seated as a jury member? On IMUS he showed you his cards. He said "LIBBY IS INNOCENT" of what he's been charged with ...

And, Eckenrode can go home to cry. No Mark Felt, he! WHile the FIB is stuck in his stink. Clearer, now, how both the CIA and FIB operate. I guess? Donkey congress critters really do have the strings of the purse that frightens so many swivel chair, insiders. Who knew?

arcanorum

"Wife calling the shots, or designated jury observer??"

Nothing unusual in seeking advice from your closest friend and trusted advisor when weighing a decision with the possibility of proving life changing for you both.

It becomes ever more clear as this 'case' continues that Fitz let his own personal biases interfere with his professional decisions. He immunized the real leakers (Fleischer, Armitage, Wilson) and sought to punish an innocent man for whom he has personal animosity due to his previous professional adversarial relationships with the defendant. What a sad and pathetic little man.

Sara (Squiggler

on evidince = only evidence

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Jeffress and I recommended to Libby that subject to putting on the briefers and some documentary evidence, he should rest following that. After consulting with us and his wife, he indicated he would follow this advice.'

This is known to salesmen as; DON'T TALK PAST THE CLOSE. Wells has recognized something in the jury's reaction; it's time to push the contract over to the customer and hand him a pen, with something like; 'Did you want the blue one or the red one?'

JM Hanes

Closing on Tuesday. Now there's a bona fide surprise! Pls. just give me Eckenrode, guys; throw me a bone here, eh?

OTOH, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that yours truly said "Know when to fold 'em!" this very morning. Context be damned, I was for folding before I was against it!

hit and run

Patrick R. Sullivan:
This is known to salesmen as; DON'T TALK PAST THE CLOSE.


I like that analogy...a lot.

JM Hanes

TM:

Looks like Team Libby is using the same barometer you are. :)

Dan S

I think those questions about Libby's memory did it. I expect we'll see the replies to those tied into a suggestion that Libby confused who he heard what he heard from. And he really believes he heard it as he remembers, but he's just wrong.

Along with all the evidence that Armitage was the real leak in the first place, there's nothing to show OVP was out to get Wilson on a personal basis, just to discredit his lies, and there was no crime committed anyway.

Oh, and the investigation was a sad excuse for a farce. Lost notes. Bad FBI reports. Not asking all those who got leaks to testify. Immunizing the original leaker and a subsequent one. Believing someone documented as a liar... the list goes on.

Sara (Squiggler

Okay, what tape will Wells play? Has Mitchell's "everyone knows" already been played? It casts doubt but doesn't actually impeach Russert. Could there be a phone tape of Eckrode and Russert? Or ?????? Any guesses?

Jim E.

Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future? If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?

Sara (Squiggler

Or, as I've suspected all along, if Libby called Russert from his office or from AF2, there is a tape of the call on that system. Could it be that Libby has gotten a release of that tape?

hit and run

Oh, and the investigation was a sad excuse for a farce.


Word on the street is that farce may be filing a defamation suit against Fitz and the FBI.

clarice

We're good at this and it is a public service. When this is finally over, I hope we do this on other matters--like the Haditha case as to which no court martials have yet been brought and the AIPAC cases which begin in June (starred the same cast of nincompoops at the top) and as to which the judge has on several occasions already expressed grave rservations about the prosecution.

KC Johnson did more to save the Duke Lacrosse players than anyone. Why don't we use our various skills to cast light on dubious prosecutions in high profile cases?
(But not the Anna Nicole Smith custody battles, please I BEG YOU.)

Sara (Squiggler

JimE, no I don't believe there is a plea bargain. I sincerely believe that Libby was pursuing the Wilson story not the Plame story and that if he misremembers it is just that and not intent.

JM Hanes

Wells describes what remains to be brought in, per FDL:

Wells; Certain readings, stipulations, newspaper articles, I wish to play a certain tapes to the jury to show that Russert gave in accurate [sic] testimony to the jury when he testified. If we get the legal arguments out of the way, in terms of what we have to do, it can be done in less than a half an hour–assume an hour and a half.

Sara (Squiggler

When we are done here, I think we should turn our collective brains to helping out those two border patrol agents who were railroaded into jail by lies and evidence tampering.

JM Hanes

"Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future?"

It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.

"If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?"

Sure. My conclusions are always susceptible to the facts in evidence.

fdcol63

Russert told me that I could be the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

But then Andrea Mitchell said she (Mitchell, or Anna Nicole? Who knows!) was drunk at the time.

And now, of course, David Gregory denies the whole thing.

I'm so confused! LOL

Javani

"The defense has only 60-90 minutes left to their case? And no David Gregory? No Joe Wilson? No Cliff May? No Marty Peretz? "

Wilson is immaterial. Gregory? I don't know, neither side I suspect knows what he would say. May? We already have Armitage saying "everyone knows" more than once. What's better than a disembodied voice of authority?

"Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"

Mitchell has her record on Imus, Russert is forever fixed with the label as squealer to the FBI without any legal compulsion. He will receive no more confidences, the same for Novak.

JM Hanes

"Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future?"

It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.

"If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?"

Sure. My conclusions are always susceptible to the facts in evidence.

Javani

"The defense has only 60-90 minutes left to their case? And no David Gregory? No Joe Wilson? No Cliff May? No Marty Peretz? "

Wilson is immaterial. Gregory? I don't know, neither side I suspect knows what he would say. May? We already have Armitage saying "everyone knows" more than once. What's better than a disembodied voice of authority?

"Looks like the Mitchell-Gregory-Russert mafia got away with it, after all. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"

Mitchell has her record on Imus, Russert is forever fixed with the label as squealer to the FBI without any legal compulsion. He will receive no more confidences, the same for Novak.


As for testifying, Libby effectively did -- for eight hours, the GJ tapes played. What could he add? Nothing, he could only slip up.

clarice

What TAPES impeaching Russert? Did Eckenrode have them? Nah but it's fun to think so.

I never watch Hardball. If someone does, tell us about Shuster. The last 2 times I saw him it looked like he was about to burst out in tears.

hit and run

JM Hanes:
It's a snowstorm, Jim E., not hell freezing over.


Ding. Ding. Ding. My favorite line of the day!!!!! It's 3:25pm EST and I'm calling it. No one else need try.

jwest

Clarice,

Are you suggesting we use our powers for goodness instead of evilness?

Form a “Justice League” of sorts, flying through cyberspace righting the wrongs of liberal DAs.

Do we get to wear tight fitting uniforms?

percipio


"Why don't we use our various skills to cast light on dubious prosecutions in high profile cases?"

Clarice - maybe low profile cases also? I feel sorry for those people who may be experiencing a Libby scenario in the courts but are perhaps lacking the resources that he had.

bio mom

I didn't get the idea that the defense definitely had no further witnesses but briefers. I thought they were talking about Thursday. Wednesday will begin at 1:30. There still could be witnesses.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: THE LOONS

WHO ARE EXPECTING SOME HEADS TO EXPLODE HERE.

Wells could gain a lot of miles just by signaling he's not going to torture jurors for the next two weeks.

You also don't know what Walton will do. Since he's been reading the jurors questions; both the ones he reads aloud. And, the ones he just pockets. Some day all those questions make it into some sort of public record?

What if Walton DISMISSES this dog?

Curiosity drops, ahead? Or DRUDGE has his Blue-Light siren ready?

What if Wells knows the best tack, now, is to let Walton decide how he wants to appear in hisory books?

And, if the case, itself, acquits Libby? Doesn't it look better that he didn't need to mess up the FBI with Eckenrode? He didn't need to call the veep?

The only dog in this race, so far, who has managed to make a big magilla out of nothing, is Fitz, himself. WHo took a road AFTER it was known that Armitage "leaked."

You think prosecutors are proud?

You think there's a hall of fame award for Nifong? Or Snedden? Or other clowns? How about Judge Ito?

I'll predict: Just like OJ walked, Scooter SCOOTS. And, Russert, eventually loses his shining luster up at NBC. Who face choices now, similar to the executive dudes at Black Rock. Before the CBS "eye" became C-BS. And, got blackened like a rock.

Walter

Tom, I DEMAND 24/7 (or at least 2/5) coverage of the Wilson Civil Suit starting, well, WEDNESDAY!

OR ELSE ... I'll go do something productive with my time, ... I guess.

james

Does anyone think there's a possibility of a plea bargain in Scooter's future? If so, would anyone change their opinion of Libby if he agreed to one?

Purely for entertainment purposes, since he has not been convicted of anything, what sort of plea bargin are you imagining?

Jane

Ding. Ding. Ding. My favorite line of the day!!!!!

I second that. I love when I think I can hear the inflection.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'We're good at this and it is a public service. When this is finally over, I hope we do this on other matters...'

Just One Minute and Associates.

clarice

It's very hard to do low profile cases online because what you need to start unraveling things is (sorry to say so) media reports to work from.
Now, I consider those reports inadequate often utterly wrong --scratch paper, if you will-- but absent transcripts, exhibitis and media accounts we have too little to work with.

Jim E.

james,

What's entertaining is for you to think that defendants only sign onto plea agreements after they're convicted. ha ha

Tom Bowler

Do you make a practice of wrestling paraplegics, TM?

Great analogy Clarice!

roanoke

Aaaaargh what tape does Wells have that goes to Russert's testimony?

I remember this from Maid Marion last night-does it give a clue?

Any ideas?

Here is Maid Marion's observation-

The NBC lawyer was sitting in the front row (Prosecution side), where he had been seated last week during Russert’s testimony. However, after that business was taken care of and before Pincus was brought into the courtroom, he moved to the far back row in the courtroom. I could see when he made notes and when he received incoming messages on his blackberry. There was a part in Pincus’s testimony which was of keen interest to the NBC lawyer. It was when Pincus testified that on Saturday, July 12, while at his WaPo office writing up his article about Niger and WMD he received a call from a government official asking him “Why do you keep writing about Wilson?” Defense asked “Who was the government official?” Pincus replied “Ari Fletcher” at which point the NBC lawyer whipped out his blackberry and typed away. This was the first time he used his blackberry and then subsequently received incoming messages intermittently from this point forward in the trial until the break. I didn’t copy down all the times he wrote down notes, but here are the ones I recorded: a) When Pincus talked about Rice’s appearance on June 8, 2003 MTP; b) when Defense wrote down on the easel the specific words Ari used with Pincus; c) when Pincus talked about his Sept 2004 subpoena and whether Ari had given him a waiver.
JJ

Hey, you have got to keep things separate!

These charges were about Libby lying to the Grand Jury and obstructing justice.

That's a narrow focus. I wish and hope and pray for an end to the hypotheticals (good one, sbw) that have been journalizing.

But the defense's purpose is solely to spring Libby...and it looks like they have done a good job of showing the picture of faded memories and muddled statements very accurately. HOW IRONIC IS THAT!

I am bracing -- and I mean bracing! -- for months of nauseating journalistic introspection though about how bad this trial was for fact-checking the government and good journalism in general.

But, hey, Fox News is just as bad as MSNBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, and CNN, IMO.

Just one accurate news outlet would have sunk this whole ship of journalistic misery long ago. Journalism in the this country is great, but it's got a long, long way to go.

clarice

The Just One Minute justice league--I like that--get your girl to call mine and work up the costumes and --hmm--we need Soylent to do the promotional and script work. We'll have to wait until he finishes basic training.

Syl can do the visuals as soon as we unlock the front door.

Sara (Squiggler

Well, you will always have the Duke case to keep you busy. Oh but wait, now there is a 2nd Duke off campus party bathroom rape case -- what to do, what to do, this second case is an 18 year old Duke undergrad not a black exotic dancer. Will it be another "boys will be boys" defense for her?

Javani

"What TAPES impeaching Russert?"

All I've seen are his loophole-y comments before the trial about the "name" Plame. You recall, those comments that made a wide variety of people suspect Russert was dodging.

If he had never made them his testimony at trial would be trusted as truthful, but subject to memory faults like anyone's -- I doubt chicanery would be suspected.

hit and run

Well, if nothing else, the group has to stick together or come back together in about 18 months or so in preparation for the inevitable "October Surprise, 2008 Edition".

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JJ

Today, when Fitz hears the comments from Frank Rich on IMUS? It dawns on him the press has left him in the lurch.

Perhaps? The bigger question is HOW is this case dismissed? Fitz pulls the plug? Waltoon pulls the plug? Or the jury?

Best point goes to PATRICK R. SULLIVAN

You bet, the art of making money in real estate, and selling cars, is to keep your mouth closed. That's the BEST CLOSE. And, hold your pen out at the ready.

Jane

I've posted the latest on the Russert impeachment in the other thread. It's from FDL - so you can go there directly if you prefer.

politicaobscura

Don't feed the trolls.

Sara (Squiggler

I only know from TV but when immunity is given, you are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and if you fail to do this, the immunity can be voided? Ari never mentioned his convo with Pincus, did he?

BEST CLOSE

I got an email from Val saying she was out of the country, but will sell the laptop now. Craiglist.

james

What's entertaining is for you to think that defendants only sign onto plea agreements after they're convicted. ha ha

So you think that sometime in the next couple of days, before the trial ends, Libby will cop a plea to ... something?

That is too far-fetched to be entertaining.

cathyf

Here's a question, just to drop a turd in Fleischer's punchbowl...

Suppose, on appeal, a court rules that Fitzgerald's appointment did violate the constitution. Does that mean that Ari's immunity deal is null and void?

theo

The decision about whether the defendant should testify or not is always the biggest one in a white collar case. And it is always something of a crapshoot, either way. If the defendant testifies, almost nothing else in the case matters -- it comes down to how believable the defendant is. THus, a bad witness/defendant can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because without the defendant's testimony the jury looks at how credible the prosecution evidence is.

But the reality is that the jury WANTS to hear from the defendant. They will all think to themselves, if it was me and I was innocent, I would demand to testify.

So usually if the defense does not put the defendant on the stand it either means: (1) they feel very confident of their case and do not want to muck it up or (2) they have mock trialed the defendant and concluded that he will not do himself any good.

I do not know which it is in this case. I do not feel good enough about it to think it is (1). Therefore it is probably (2).

But it does show that they do NOT think that they are going down the tubes and have nothing to lose in showing them Libby.

AJStrata

No Fitzmas for anyone - no long awaited witnesses, unless Wilson civil case goes through

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3360

Cheers Plamiacs - it is almost over.

AJStrata

centralcal

From Jane's post on the other thread I think Little Russ is gonna have a great big credibility problem (again).

JM Hanes

Oh, pleeze, not yet another Justice League!

Just One Minute and Associates (LOL! Patrick RS) =

JOM ASSOC.init

azaghal

Azaghal, according to my Funk & Wagnalls, accommodation has 2 "m"'s.

Posted by: Ralph L. | February 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM


Thanks. I don't know what it is about all those "c"'s and "m"'s--sometimes nothing looks right, but I'm too proud to use a dictionary so I appeal to other posters--(sp?). :-)

Jane

I think Little Russ is gonna have a great big credibility problem (again).

And it seems so unbecoming to gloat!

Javani

"Suppose, on appeal, a court rules that Fitzgerald's appointment did violate the constitution. Does that mean that Ari's immunity deal is null and void?"

Doubtful. Like communications to someone you reasonably believed to be an attorney and whom you were consulting for legal advice, but wasn't really an attorney. Still privileged.

Comes up more with clerics.

Dan S

"It's very hard to do low profile cases online because what you need to start unraveling things is (sorry to say so) media reports to work from.
Now, I consider those reports inadequate often utterly wrong --scratch paper, if you will-- but absent transcripts, exhibitis and media accounts we have too little to work with.

Posted by: clarice | February 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM"

Clarice,

I think high profile cases are about all that can be done (to some degree) in cyberspace, as you suggest. It takes a lot of "competing" media attention to provide enough material to contrast and compare. And it takes a lot of coverage to note the blanks. With light coverage of COURSE things will be missed and left blank. With heavy, we know the gatherers are looking for anything to give them an edge, and gaps start acting as data in and of themselves.

But if a more lightly-reported case has good JOM local presense, some first-person reporting can enter the picture too. It's certainly played a part in the Libby case since there are several like you in the DC area.

And that's probably part of KC's success in the Nifong case too. He has access to more than online information.

Maybe the real issue is enough coverage to achieve a critical mass of interest and concern.

Cecil Turner

Therefore it is probably (2).

Hmmm . . . Jewish lawyer, Republican, memory ("overload") defense related to go-to-war decision. DC Jury. Somehow I think you're on safe ground, here.

theo

Almost over?

Well what have we learned?

In the beginning, the questions were: (1) Who "outed" Valerie Plame Wilson?, (2) Was it a crime to do so?, (3) Whether criminal or not, was it intended to punish her husband for blowing the whistle on faulty pre war intelligence?

And now we know the answers: (1) Richard Armitage (2) No (3) No.

(But as to number (3) the MSM will always report "yes" no matter how much the evidence proves that Wilson did not blow any whistle (just tooted his own horn) and was not punished for it. )

Jane

Well since the left appears to be gearing up to impeachment, I'm not sure we will be out of work anytime soon.

Until then it is time to dismantle the MSM - one Tim Russert at a time.

JM Hanes

Sara:

"Ari never mentioned his convo with Pincus, did he?"

Apparently not to Fitzgerald, anyway (which does not fall under surprises). Jeffries, on cross, specifically asked him if he told Pincus, and Ari specifically said what in FitzSpeak is called an "unqualified" no.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame