Clarice Feldman On "The Potemkin Prosecution"

Regular readers here will recognize frequent commenter Ms. Feldman immediately - she writes at The American Thinker about the problematic prosecution of I. Libby Lewis.

Comments

[kim]

There's much amiss,
Do not dismiss.
============

[maryrose]

Kudos clarice!
What an excellent article! You have tied all the threads together and put Fitz on notice.Take that Fitz!

[Jake - but not the one]

Well, I read the article, and I thought it well written - for a polemic. Clarice certainly points out flaws and failures, while neglecting all successes. The very heart of polemicism!

Anyway, I think it intersting that she referred to the accidental disclosure case without mentioning that what was disclosed was an illegal federal wiretap. I also think it interesting that she opines on Fitz's attorneyhood without ever commenting on Libby's illegal exposure of Plame and his subsequent lies to the grand jury.

Shoot, the right pilloried Clinton for the same thing, but LibbY? Errrm, not so much.

Ok, Lieberman piled on with Clinton, but it's hard to call him anything but a Republican.

Anyway, it's still a good article, as such things go.

Jake

[kim]

Jake, you're imagining illegal exposure, and making lies out of ambiguities. Your fantasies are theatrical.
=========================

[Sue]

Jake,

You can legitimately discuss perjury charges, since they are on the table, so why throw out something he wasn't charged with and in fact, no one was charged with? Unless you just needed a forum to throw something.

[maryrose]

Jake: Get your facts straight Libby did not Lie-Armitage outed Plame.

[topsecretk9]

--Libby's illegal exposure of Plame---

Please cite this in indictment and please cite where Fitz has provided classified status and please cite why UGO, Novaks source- the first leaker, is not subject to indictment.

Thank You

[Harry Arthur]

To this simple non-lawyer it would appear that our DoJ is out of control. Scary, at the very least.

[Harry Arthur]

...without ever commenting on Libby's illegal exposure of Plame and his subsequent lies to the grand jury...

In fairness, both yet to be proven and the former not charged.

[topsecretk9]

Sue-

I left a question in the latest PDB thread. What do you think?

[TM]

The very heart of polemicism

The Potemkin Prosecution polemic. Pile on.

Sorry, I have time right now for wordplay but not opinions.

[Neo]

Nice.

I noticed that in the NSA leaks case, that the word is that the lawyers started with trying to figure out which, if any, laws may have been broken. If Fitz had done the same, the case would have ended two months after his initial appointment. Rather than trying to get his authority expanded, he would have dropped it all, but then there is politics.

[boris]

His post was, in sum, a hybrid creation which could not have been better designed to create a loose cannon. Only in that respect has Fitzgerald lived up to his assignment.

Ouch! Good one C.

[clarice]

Thsnk you all..for your kind comments and for your contributions which are legion to my piece.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...without ever commenting on Libby's illegal exposure of Plame...'

Because, as others have said, it was no such thing. But, we're supposed to pretend otherwise. Else, St Patrick has no reason to exist as a Special Counsel.

[windansea]

good work Clarice...even I understand it

Jake..here you will get hammered into the ground even faster than at Protein Wisdom

[clarice]

windansea,thanks! I can't tell you how hard it is for me to accurately describe legal proceedings in --um--actual English..for real people.

[Dwilkers]

Very well written, always a pleasure to read your stuff over there Clarice. As I've said, I don't think that challenge is going to fly, but I think you've laid the case out quite well for why it very well may work.

[Larry]

Can't wait for the sequel, Clarice. You da bomb, girl.Though this appointment business is an outrage, it'd be a shame if he got off on this "technicality". Kind of hoping the case goes to trial and Scooter's team systematically nails Fitz' hide to the wall. Do you have any sense of whether they want to proceed or not?

[clarice]

Thank you both. Larry no one in his right mind wants to go thru one of these ordeals if it can be avoided.The cost and stress is enormous.Don't ever say "got off on a technicality"..If the motion to dismiss is successful it means he was wrongfully charged with wrongdoing. Period.

I'm taking a breather and then will work on The Motion to Compel.

[Larry]

I see what you mean. I guess my investment in popcorn futures was ill-thought-out.

[Appalled Moderate]

Clarice:

There are times when you sound like an aclu lawyer.

If Libby gets off because the independent counsel was improperly appointed, then the whole matter will end with one big question mark, and the conspiracy theories will multiply endlessly. The question -- whether Libby lied to a grand jury -- will be answered with a big "doesn't matter".

i think your side is better served if the case is thrown out on the grounds of materiality. That gives you: "Fitz was wrong" rather than "The Bush admin is incapable of investigating itself".

[Patton]

Makes you wonder about the accuracy of Fitzgeralds Ex-Parte communications with the appeals court that allowed the journalists to be questioned.

Shouldn't we know if Fitz claimed he had information showing that Libby ''was the first to disclose Plame outside government'.

Is that what the court hung their hat on to allow the subpeonas?

What would have happened if Fitz said...well, we know Libby wasn't first, UGO was...but he's not sexy enough to prosecute and the press will hate us for it.

[Patton]

I take it then I can go arrest and prosecute Appalled Moderate for murder and when he points out I'm just a janitor that was appointed by Dog......we'll all be able to say he just got off on a technicality.

[Jake - but not the one]

Windandsea;

I'll say this much. There are some good commenters at PW.

Jake

[clarice]

AM,Materiality is something to be resolved at a later date, I think, and in any event is not to my knowledge yet contested in the pleadings though it certainly will be.

There is a kind of choreography that lawyer's are bound to. In this case because it goes to the entire indictment and is obvious from the outset and can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing, Libby was compelled to file the Motion to Dismiss first.
I think it is compelling.And I've said so.

We are dealing with a criminal case and no matter how the politics of it may play out, the lawyers are not utterly free to discard the normal methods of proceeding.

I haven't considered it in depth , but in line with the Lee and Hatfill cases, if the case is dismissed without trial, perhaps Libby should consider civil suits against the NYT, Kristof, the WaPo and Pincus for initiating the false reports which led to this case.(Then we can see why Kristof and Pincus ignored Wilson's "I was misquoted" claims.)

[Jake - but not the one]

Not to confuse the issue, but as has been pointed out, Fitz isn't actually accusing Libby of outing Plame - that laundry list is very long and way suject to "exective privilege" - just of lying to the grand jury. You know, like Clinton and the defintion of "is". And while it is probably true that Libby isn't the only member of the administration to lie to the grand jury, he is the one about whom Fitz believes he has the goods.

You know, the thing I like about this whole Fitz thing is that while you can certainly argue either side of the issue from lots of viewpoints, we are actually going to get a court to look at it. Now if only GW would take the same approach with the FISA thingee, that would be so cool.

Not to mention adult, farsighted, forthright and responsible.

Jake

[TM]

Makes you wonder about the accuracy of Fitzgeralds Ex-Parte communications with the appeals court that allowed the journalists to be questioned.

Judge Tatel's opinion, with the once-redacted grand jury stuff mostly back in, is available.

Off the top of my head, Fitzgerald would stand up OK (on this) - his point was that Miller and Cooper were needed to resolve puzzling aspects of Libby's testimony, and others (Cooper had testified about Libby by then, but was holding out on Rove).

[clarice]

Patton, we do have portions of Fitzgerald's presentation to the Miller Ct of Appeals (everything but the gj testimony IIRC). In his fn he indicated that he had no reason yet to believe that the Espionage Act or IIPA had been violated by Libby and that was in August of 2003 when he'd said he was virtually finished with the investigation and needed only Cooper's and Miller's tesimony to wrap it up.

Therefore, logically, he regarded Miller's bafflegab testimony about the June 23 conversation as dispositive.

[clarice]

Correction--August of 2004--

[maryrose]

All this legal jargon can be confusing to the non-law populace. You have made it understandable and comprehensible to the average layman.

[clarice]

Thank you. I try to.

OT: Moussaoui just testified that he and shoe bomber wanna be Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth plane on 9/11 and fly it into the WH. http://www.foxnews.com/

[PeterUK]

Jakie,
If you believe this:-

"I also think it interesting that she opines on Fitz's attorneyhood without ever commenting on Libby's illegal exposure of Plame and his subsequent lies to the grand jury".

Why bother with this? It is not germane.

"Not to confuse the issue, but as has been pointed out, Fitz isn't actually accusing Libby of outing Plame "

[cathyf]

One little quibble, Clarice. I think I was the first person to point out the Texas Holy Land prosecutorial fiasco, so I can also point out that there is at least one more degree of separation between that one and Fitzgerald than in the Cowles fiasco, which really was directly under his authority. In the Muslim charities case, there are two prosecutions, of the Holy Land Foundation in Texas and the Global Relief Foundation in Illinois, that have arisen from one investigation. The Texas staff (prosecutors and FBI) were all busy working on other cases last spring, and so some temp agents came in who were not familiar with the case and they are the ones who handed over the classified docs.

Although I would still maintain that Fitzgerald has a little indirect responsibility here -- if the Holy Land "A team" in Texas was swamped, the Global Relief people in Chicago would have been the logical "B team." Was the fact that they went to the "C team" (who screwed up) related to Fitzgerald being busy fighting the legal battles over the Cooper and Miller subpeonas last spring?

cathy :-)

[clarice]

He was over all the teams, wasn't he? And when Comey was asked whether Fitz' obligations under the other cases he was prosecuting as a USAtty didn't mean he was too busy to handle the Plame case properly, Comey denied that he was, didn't he?
Had Comey followed the regs for appointing a regular Special Prosecutor--someone outside the Dept who could devote appropriate attention to the matter and who'd be under DoJ oversight--would we have someone messing up three cases simultaneously?

Is he overworked? Undoubtedly..but that is because Comey and Fitz chose this extra-statutory (unconstitutional) way to proceed.
For most US Attys one big case like this at a time is a full plate.

[maryrose]

Fitz's ability to multi-task is under severe scrutiny here and so far he is 0 for 3 with me.

[Patton]

Jake ""Now if only GW would take the same approach with the FISA thingee, that would be so cool.""

They did...... ITS LEGAL

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp

[Jake - but not the one]

Patton, your link is like short some - here is how you post a link in comments (I only have this because I always forget and then have to go look it up again)

< no_space A space href="chapter2.html">chapter two< slash no_space A no_space >

Where you replace the "chapter2.html" with your http url, and the >chapter 2< with your description of the link.

And I am truly interested to see where GW tested his unitary executive theory vis a vis FISA in a court of law.

Jake

[maryrose]

Remember Jake:
GWB is looking out for you and protecting you at all times. He doesn't want terrorists calling into the USA and arranging financing for their terrorist attacks. Your boy Fitz is prosecuting a case right now and in his inimitable way is blowing it big time.

[Patton]

Cut and paste it into your browser and read the article. Every court that has ruled has ruled in favor of the President (Executive) having this Constitutional power.

[Jake - but not the one]

Patton, I DID paste it and I got the dreaded http 404.

So, puhleeze, I wasn't chappin' your butt, I was asking for a working url.

Jake

[larwyn]

If case is dismissed, this is wonderful news:

Justices: Suit Against Times Can Proceed

A federal judge had thrown out Hatfill's lawsuit against The New York Times over 2002 columns by writer Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit, and the Supreme Court declined without comment to take up the case.
New York attorney David Schulz, who represented the newspaper, said the appeals court decision undermines free speech protections for reporters and invites more lawsuits over legitimate news reporting.

The Associated Press and some 30 other news organizations urged the court to use the case to clarify reporters' free-speech protections.

Asking you, the experts, who could Libby bring civil suits against?

Hope Wilson/s will be on your list.

[clarice]

Odd that Jake should raise this on the very day Moussaoui says he and Reid were to hijack a Fifth plane on 9/11 and crash it into the WH and the CIA agent is testifying that he couldn't get permission to warn the FBI about Moussaoui and the FBI agent is testifying he couldn't get to FBI hq to warn them about Moussaoui.

[Jake - but not the one]

Maryrose, I wouldn't trust GW to walk my granddaughter across the street. So don't EVEN ask me to trust him on something complicated like this kind of stuff.

Jake

[Jake - but not the one]

Clarice, clarify. Why is it interesting? Because his superiors refused to take his requests seriously?

Jake

[topsecretk9]

Larwyn

I have a sneaky tinfoil suspicion that Sibel Edmonds was source for Mr. Kristoff's slander.

The dates and the disgruntled.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Jake, please explain how Bush can 'test' his surveillance program in a court of law.

[topsecretk9]

the wall

[topsecretk9]

all in all it's just another brick

[clarice]

Because there was a wall which precluded the CIA from talking to the FBI--a wall made impossibly high by Gorelick and which reflects the same blinkered view Robertson formerly on the FISA panel espoused.

The same thing happened in the 1993 WTC bombing where the Wall prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing info--info that revealed that this was an Iraqi operation and the only people they caught were the dummies left to be caught on purpose. (I.e. the jerk they talked into returning the truck used in the bombing for the rental deposit--and he did it TWICE) as Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to the tender sanctuary of Saddam in Baghdad.

[cathyf]

Just an aside... Here's how to post links:

<a href="http://www.blah.blah...">Text label</a>

In your link, substitute your url for the stuff in bold, and your text label for the stuff in italics. For example, Patton's link would be entered into the comment like this:

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp"> class="articlesubtitle">The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program</a>

And it posts looking like this:

The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program

Copy/paste that into a text file somewhere, and then you can copy/paste your particular links in each time.

cathy :-)

[Jake - but not the one]

Clarice, the FBI agent could not get HIS boss to pursue M - not somebody else's boss and not another agency.

Or so I have read.

Patrick, I think it real simple. There is honest debate about whether or not the Pres's position is legal. So, let a challenge develop. If Bush were actually interested in doing the right thing instead of whatever he wants to do, he'd find a way to get the SCOTUS to opine on the issue. Us non-radical-righters would then still be all huffy, but the law would be clear.

And I'm sorry, but it isn't clear that Bush has any right to do as he's done with FISA. It't not clear to me and not clear to a LOT of people, some of whom even know what they are talking about.

What is so hard about having an open and honest exploration of the legality of his position? If he thinks the constitution supports him, then he should have no fears. If he's worried that the SCOTUS might not support him, wouldn't you think that was reason enought to NOT go down that path?

Keep in mind, no one is suggesting that wiretaps should not be done. Only that they be done with FISA supervision.

Is that so much to ask?

Jake

[larwyn]

OT
For all the FNL speakers of Italian:

praticamente cretino
Is that what Scalia calls it?

Changing the Tune:
What if PC meant practically cretinous instead of politically correct? It sounds better in Italian -- praticamente cretino -- but there you are. Can’t have everything.
Hey, this could catch on! As in “Daily Kos” is praticamente cretino.
Capeesh?

Dymphna of GatesOfVienna found this at:
The Joy of Knitting, an Italian blogger whose English is so perfect you’d swear you were reading an ex-patriate’s musings, has an excellent proposal:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

[clarice]

workd for me,larwyn..Jake--it is too much to ask and all the Courts which have considered this have said so.--the wiretapping is of no consequence until someone tries to use it in court and we don't, the leads are passed on to the FBI which investigates to see if there is a reason to prosecute.

But certainly if there more than a lame partisan move behind the attacks, the Dems should introduce legislation to stop it and bring the issue to a head..And they won't.

[Jake - but not the one]

Byron York for crying out loud? Sheesh. Why don't you just quote Jonah Goldberg?

Here is a specific refutation of the Sealed Case as support for not following FISA.

DoJ's Responses to Congress: The NSA Scandal in Microcosm .

The bottom line is that the Sealed Case does not apply, and the DOJ admits as much.

Jake

PS - thanks cathy. It may be my browser settings, but I just not see all of the url.

[clarice]

Jake, at this point I think you've thoroughly hijacked the thread, but if you check the archives there've been long discussions already on this point. As between AL and York, however, you might have guessed whose interpretations are most highly regarded here.

[Barney Frank]

Jake,

I'm not clear on what you're saying.

If Bush or any president thinks a program his administration is pursuing is legal, he's supposed to sue himself to get to the SCOTUS, as soon as someone objects to the program?
He certainly hasn't prevented anyone with standing who feels his actions are illegal from challenging it in court.
So what exactly are you saying?

[Jake - but not the one]

Clarice, to label the discontent of a large group of fellow Americans as simply a lame partisan attack is cheap and dishonest. We are all on this boat together, and it isn't too much to ask for the less trusting among us that you PROVE what you (as in GW) say.

And getting your pet attorneys to say "it's legal" doesn't cut it.

Jake

[Jake - but not the one]

Anyone with standing? Don't you think that might actually take some facts? All we have now is the President's word that he broke the FISA law.

Even so, we may get there with the Oregon case with the accidentally released transcrips of attorney-client conversations.

That's all any of us so called lefties want - and independent judicial review of the presidents position with regard to his admitted breaking of the FISA law.

'Cause, you know, we don't TRUST HIM.

Jake

[clarice]

It works for me--and apparently it works for the majority of my fellow citizens or their freely elected representatives would find a way to challenge it instead of just yakking about it.

[Rick Ballard]

No, It's cheap and dishonest to peddle crap that's been beaten to death here as if the commenters here were unaware of every Dem lying talking point generated in the past six years.

That's cheap and dishonest - but entirely consonant with the lack of ethics and views of the tiny minority who hold that the interception of calls from identified suspected al Queada operatives overseas have something to do with "domestic spying".

Responding to you is a waste of precious pixels.

[topsecretk9]

Why don't you just quote Jonah Goldberg?

"Joe Wilson and his very important hair"

There.

[Fred Smith]

"Is that so much to ask?" - Jake

Not, Jake, if asking the impossible is not too much. Almost at the beginning of our nation, the President asked the Supreme Court to pre-approve legislation -- to opine in advance on whether the proposed law passed constitutional muster. The Court refused. The Court, the other branches of government was told, did not work that way. The Court would only rule on legitimate controversies -- meaning a law had to be passed and someone claiming to be harmed had to bring suit. In this manner, both sides of the argument would be represented and the Court would rule having had the advantage of hearing both sides argued by interested parties.

In short, there is no legal mechanism whereby the President could have done what you ask. But, don't let that stop you from claiming the President is power mad for not doing as you suggest. As you said, "If Bush were actually interested in doing the right thing instead of whatever he wants to do, he'd find a way to get the SCOTUS to opine on the issue." Why should he have let the impossible get in the way?

Of course, it's clear he did do all that was possible to ensure what he was doing was legal. He informed select members of both the majority and minority leaderships in both houses and he informed members of the FISA Court. He had career attorneys at both DOJ and NSA review the legality of the program on an ongoing basis. These are NOT actions consistent with someone who believes what he is doing is illegal. Did he try to limit the number of people who knew about the program? Yes, but that is consistent with trying to keep our enemies from knowing our capabilities.

We have testimony from those who should know that the NYT's accounts of the NSA program have hurt our ability to gather information about the terrorists and therfore have hurt national security. How much worse would our security been damaged had these issues been debated in open court? Upon reflection, yes, it is too much to ask.

[nittypig]

Jake,

Obviously it would be best for everyone to have a binding legal decision on the constitionality of the NSA surveillance program. There are plenty of arguments about whether it is constituional or not, with multiple congressmen claiming it isn't and the president claiming it is. But how exactly is Bush supposed to get a ruling on this? The way it works is only case law is binding. So to get a definitive result there has to be a case brought by someone with standing.

If this is an issue of seperation of powers, congress always holds the power of the purse. They can pass a law tommorow cutting all funding from the NSA surveillance, and the NSA will have to comply. If it's a simply 4th ammendement issue we'll have to wait for a case.

[danking70]

Jake, you are the one with the NSA problem.

Therefore, it is your responsibility to seek redress from the courts. Not the other way around.

GWB's got precedent. What do you got?

[Jake - but not the one]

Like I said, the case in Oregon may be the process to find out. All of us can only hope.

Jake

PS - that and censure. Maybe THAT will get the facts out in the open,

[Jake - but not the one]

What GWB's got is the Presidency and a rubber stamp congress. Precedent - not so much.

Jake

[nittypig]

Did Roosevelt get SCOTUS opinion on the New Deal? He certainly had a rubber stamp congress. But he didn't did he, the National Industrial Recovery Act was only found unconstitutional after a lawsuit.

[Harry Arthur]

Barney, If Bush or any president thinks a program his administration is pursuing is legal, he's supposed to sue himself to get to the SCOTUS, as soon as someone objects to the program?

He certainly hasn't prevented anyone with standing who feels his actions are illegal from challenging it in court.

Excellent! Jake, clearly you've got to see the logic in Barney's comment?

I'm STILL curious why NO ONE in the democrat leadership in congress has demanded this illegal, extra-constituional program be stopped immediately. If Bush's conduct is so totally egregious, why not stand outside the capital building and yell at the top of your lungs: "Stop this illegal program immediately!"

Nancy? Harry? I can't hear you.

[clarice]

Definitely. I'm astonished the citizenry hasn't marched in the streets with banners and papier mache puppets demanding we stop spying on Al Qaeda this minute.Certainly, the "reality based community" could be doing more to halt this egregious overreaching at time of war.

[topsecretk9]

(the) Jake's don't think Al Queda is the enemy, GWB is. So the Jake's aren't concerned and would like to protect Al Queda's right and ability to make plans to blow things up...EXcept until he gets an arm blown off at a mall or his sister, brother, mother, child gets nuke juiced then he will be the first one in the commission or hearing room with a placard screaming at his government for not doing everything possible to protect him.

It's happened already, that's precedent.

[kim]

Jake, FISA will get into court along with Pinch and the NYTimes.

Clue us in about the madness in Oregon. You should not glory in anticipation if you anticipate a fraud.

Potemkin Prosecution Polemic Panegyric Pandemic.
================================

[Jake - but not the one]

Harry, ya know, I got the same question. At this point only Russ is willing to take a stand. It's nice to have ONE guy, at least in the senate, willing to stand up and be heard.

Clarice, you are opting for cheap an dishonest again. No one is suggesting we should not wiretap. Only that we wiretap in accordance with the law and under the supervison of a court. Specifically, the FISA court.

Topsecret, extremism is the enemy of all of us. Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Timothy McVeigh - all are enemies of peace. Nobody, literally NOBODY, thinks we should ignore them.

Many of us just don't trust Bush. It's really that simple. We don't trust him.

To do ANYTHING.

So, humor us. Help us to get comfortable with a man we longer trust with the leadership of this nation. Do the littel things that prove that SOMEONE is actually holding him to account, because up to now we see a lawless, reckless warmonger with no conscience combined with a rubber stamp congress more interested in payola than governance and oversight. And that's just for starters.

Jake

[clarice]

Rick's right. Waste of pixels.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' Patrick, I think it real simple. There is honest debate about whether or not the Pres's position is legal. So, let a challenge develop. If Bush were actually interested in doing the right thing instead of whatever he wants to do, he'd find a way to get the SCOTUS to opine on the issue.'

Others have already beaten me to saying that Jake hasn't a clue about how the American legal system works. It ain't as in the above suggestion.

[Sue]

They can't find anyone to bring the claim? Surely if the president broke the law they could find one person who would be willing to bring the lawsuit.

[topsecretk9]

Topsecret, extremism is the enemy of all of us. Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Timothy McVeigh - all are enemies of peace. Nobody, literally NOBODY, thinks we should ignore them.

That's right and they all want(ed) nothing more than to KILL.

Idealism is the enemy of reality---They talk on phones and make plans to kill us.

[kim]

Well, Pat, it's this Imperial Presidency, see? Ever seen an Emperor who couldn't get whatever he liked in front of the SCOTUS?

And speaking of imperiality, I would remind you, Jake, that Bush is CEO of the world and adding value daily for all stakeholders, including, perhaps reluctantly, you.
==================================

[Jake - but not the one]

Kim, here is a link for the Oregon case:

Newspaper sues for documents in NSA wiretap case
.

Oh, I have been dismissed by Rick and Clarice! Oh, the pain, the pain!

Or something like that.

You know, if it were so simple to dismiss ALL the arguments opposing your viewpoints, you wouldn't be so anxious to put your positions out there and so vehement in defending them.

Your actions belie your words.

Jake

PS - getting the SCOTUS to opine does NOT mean just asking them. It means participaiting in a proceeding and not blocking it. But we shall see. So far, the Congress has proved singularly inept at oversight of this president.

[clarice]

Actually, Jake, my participation in online chats is probably just a cheap substitute for needed therapy, but there are times when the posts are so irrational and the chance of meaningful dialogue so slim, it's not worth the savings.

[windansea]

jake..I warned you...we get tired explaining the same things over and over again to incoming lefties with an agenda and no facts or real knowledge...search the archives for NSA wiretap stuff and you will see this has been well discussed with legal cites etc...you seem to base your viewpoints on MSM sources..big mistake

[Jake - but not the one]

Yes, Clarice, I agree with you.

Windsea, I am working up to your exalted state of knowledge, but it takes time as I am so far behind, you know?

I do read what you guys link, just so you know. Then I read some more. But maybe I don't always come to the same conclusions. :)

Jake

[windansea]

PS jake

you don't trust the Chimperor...that's your right but as others have said...its not his job to rule on the legality of NSA wiretaps even though he did take reasonable steps to make sure it had precedent and he also advised congress....why do you think not one dem in congress has voted to cut funding or actually stop the program in some way? It's just politics and posturing...the Times leaked it trying to hurt Bush and the press and the left are running with it....Bush is not going to get censured and this is just another Chimpeachment scandal that will fail...sorry to disappoint

[windansea]

Jake...I am just a Labrador with ability to type....you've already "interacted" with some of the smartest people here and they've lost their patience....for NSA info you need to read archives here from awhile back...

[kim]

Jake, you worry that Congress has been inept. I worry that one of them, Jay Rockefeller, was immortalizing his ignorance and impotence in a billet foux to himself and his vault.
===================================

[topsecretk9]

Not looking good, notice too that she feels the need to go over the jury instructions if she proceeds (jurors needing help for "ambiguous" instructions) which means they were probably not written well (Frank Quattrone, Authur Anderson?). Anyways, defense filed a motion against dismissal and replacement (alts being on the outside at this point) and already 8 days of deliberations...I think mistrial is inevitable

A federal judge said Monday that she has dismissed two jurors from former Gov. George Ryan's corruption trial and that she is still trying to determine whether the stalled jury deliberations can be restarted.

"I haven't made any final decisions about whether we will be able to proceed," U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer told reporters after dismissing the two jurors.

Pallmeyer said that if she decides to avoid a mistrial and push ahead, she plans to call the jurors back into the courtroom, give them a fresh set of instructions and start deliberations from scratch. The plan could add weeks to the trial, which is now in its sixth month.

And restarting the trial apparently would require replacing the two jurors with alternates - something Ryan's attorneys oppose.

The judge said, however, that she wanted to go ahead with the trial if she felt that the jury would be able to deliberate fairly.

The two jurors were dropped after articles in the Chicago Tribune last week that said they had apparently lied about their criminal records on questionnaires filled out before the trial.

The judge said she had studied personal documents and criminal background information and questioned the jurors themselves before making her decision.

[kim]

Hey, Jake, how about a precis of that Oregon case. Having perused it, I find myself unable to adequately capture its essence, here.
=============================

[mariner]

Clarice,

Thank you for your comments here, and your several excellent articles at The American Thinker.

I actually have mixed e-motions about this. ;)

I'd certainly like to see Libby out from under this cloud, with most of his money still in his pocket.

OTOH, if the case is dismissed now, most Americans will not have the faintest idea just how baseless this prosecution really is, and I fear Libby will not be fully vindicated.

It appears to me at this point that Fitzpatrick has deliberately abused his authority to slander a decent man for partisan political purposes, and I'd like to see real consequences for him.

[clarice]

Thank you, but I'm not into human sacrifice and I figure if he wins on this--and I make clear I think he should--he'll find a way to deal with that. And of course given the magnitude of the lies about him and how longstanding they've been, do you suppose that even a victory after a long, expensive court battle would insulate him from similar comments? I don't. Last year when I first started writing about the case, we were swamped with hate letters--too many peole are too heavily invested in the Wilson whistleblower storyline to give it up.

[Rick Ballard]

Mariner,

Everyone posting here would pay to see the truth out in this case. The only hope for that happening is for Chairman Hyde to make hearings on the matter his swan song. Two weeks of no holds barred questioning would do the trick.

It won't happen in court because getting to the DoS/CIA/MSM iniating sequence into the case is damn near impossible.

If it went to the Senate the usual cast of nincompoops would put on a clown act that would generate only tears and derision.

C'mon Chairman Hyde - don't go gently.

[kim]

Rage, rage against the spying of the slight.
========================

[Jake - but not the one]

Windandsea, if someone loses patience with me, that's just the way it goes. I don't give up positions any easier than anyone else, and so far I see lots of partisan argumentation and little actual discussion. Lots of the "proof" offered is no more than the ramblings of a partisan hack. Shoot, I got matching but opposite ramblings of partisan hacks from the other side of the question.

I WAS wrong to lay the Clinton Bubble at Bush's feet. :)

But preach away, I'm good for a listen.

Kim, a precis? MOI? I make no claims to anything except being born in this country and having an inquiring mind. I only know what I read, and that is that the gov listened in on a conversation in the US between an attorney and a client and apparently did not get a warrant. The Oregon paper has filed suit to get the facts and the gov is bobbing and weaving. Like I said, maybe something will come of it all.

Clarity, perhaps.

I'll say this much - I like ths subjects about which Tom chooses to post.

Jake

PS - just so y'all know, there won't be that many days when I will be such a pain the butt. I have been derelict in my duties, and that WILL catch up with me.

[kim]

Don't need a warrant to listen to al Qaeda, or did you miss the fine print?
\===================================

[Kate]

May I also add that I enjoyed the article very much. I hope the case is dismissed, and we've certainly come a long way from December, when it looked like Rove woud indicted.

I am always very wary when the media makes a hero out of someone. I'm old enough to remember how the media fawned over the Watergate prosecutors and judges, senators--gave them cute nicknames. They were just doing their jobs, the media tried to make them heroes.

Tried to pull the same thing with both Wilson and Fitz.

[clarice]

Thanks, Kate.

[windansea]

Jake...you didn't go to the archives on NSA posts did you? Thats where all the cites and legal precedent stuff is

Clarice may be a partisan but she is no hack

In regards to the Gorelick/Clinton wall and the current trial....read this

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/27/D8GK2D4G0.html

or go to PW...they are discussing it

[kim]

Good ol' Will Rogers is known for having said that all he knew was what he read in the newspapers. He did say that but appended 'and what I see with mine eyes as I wander from hither to thither.'

Come back as often as you like. Our feet get cold unless held to the fire.
================================

[Jake - but not the one]

Kim, you need a warrant to listen if the entire conversation is in the US, which is the case here, or so I understand - which is clearly the understanding of a whole bunch of people involved in this suit.

And to wrap up the point, if it WAS AQ, don't you think the FISA court would have supported it and provided the warran? I do.

Jake

[kim]

If it was domestic, what would FISA have to do with it?
================================

[Jake - but not the one]

I didn't say Clarice was a partisan hack. In fact the very first thing I said was that I enjoyed her article, though I couldn't entirely agree with it.

No, Windandsea, I did not go to the archives. Instead, I went to the archives at Glenn Greenwald's place. It may be partisan of me, but I prefer his take on the law.

But it was the Byron York article that set me off. The Sealed Case is not applicable law for the current FISA brouhaha - or so I read at Glenn's place. Apparently, from reading the DOJ's responses as reported there, neither does the DOJ.

And I AM supposed to be working on paying stuff.

Jake