Libby's defense team got some help from the judge today. Here is Matt Apuzzo of the AP:
A federal judge handed a victory to the defense Thursday in the Valerie Plame case, siding with Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff in a fight over release of classified information.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decided that he won't impose strict standards sought by prosecutors who want to limit the amount of classified information used in the trial of defendant I. Lewis Libby.
Prosecutors had proposed a stringent three-part legal test that would have allowed information to be considered for the trial only when its benefit to the defense outweighed the government's need to keep it secret.
Walton sided with Libby's lawyers, who said any evidence that's relevant to the case should be considered for use. Once Walton rules on which evidence is relevant, government attorneys can propose portions to be blacked out or summarized, the judge said.
Thrillseekers can find the 14 page ruling here.
My quick perusal suggested the ruling was technical rather than topical, but perhaps someone else can find some case-related hints in there.
WISHFUL THINKING: Joel Seidman of MSNBC finds "news" in the ruling:
WASHINGTON - The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursday that if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certain classified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby can jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismiss the perjury charges against Libby.
Well. First of all, frequent commenter Cecil Turner noticed the same thing. Secondly, contra Mr. Seidman this is hardly a "ruling" by the judge; think of it more as a statement of fact.
Finally, we can only imagine the sighs of relief with which NBC News would greet a dismissal of the charges by Special Counsel Fitzgerald - this trial may be quite embarrassing for two of their reporters, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert.
Mr. Seidman does not dwell upon (or even note) NBC's rooting interest here. Oh, well - he did not note their rooting interest in his previous story either. My guess is that coverage of these journalistic conflicts of interest may be a bit light as the trial approaches - neither TIME, the NY Times, nor NBC will want to call attention to the roles played by their own reporters.
No to Fitz escaping his weasly case and leaving Libby under a cloud of suspicion with his case dismissed for a technicality.
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 02:07 PM
Meanwhile Bush is pressing to keep from having to show people accused of terrorism any classified material at all, even when it means the death penalty.
Oh yeah, I forgot-those people are already known to be terrorists.
Posted by: freaknik | September 21, 2006 at 02:17 PM
Meanwhile Bush is pressing to keep from having to show people accused of terrorism any classified material at all, even when it means the death penalty.
Although as has been well-publicized, the judge and the defendants JAG lawyers do get to review the evuidence.
I'm still hoping that the Dems base their campaign on "Civil Rights for Terrorists". I see Gitmo, they see Selma - maybe they could even stage sit-ins or have the Netroots take over a college campus, or at least the affiliated Starbucks...
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 21, 2006 at 02:24 PM
OT but involves Armitage
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan
said that after the September 11 attacks the United States
threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with
America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60
Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to
Musharraf's intelligence director.
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said,
'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone
Age,"' Musharraf said.
Posted by: CNJ | September 21, 2006 at 02:35 PM
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said,
'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,"' Musharraf said."
Very interesting.
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Hey, man, Starbucks is, like, organic.
We're going to shut down an Exxon station!!
Or two!!
Posted by: JohnH | September 21, 2006 at 02:41 PM
If case is dismissed by Fitz does Libby get any reimbursement of his lawyers's costs?
Posted by: maryrose | September 21, 2006 at 02:42 PM
One reader has kindly reproduced the adobe pacer version of the opinion into html format and I've sent it to TM should he care to reproduce it.
Before we get into Gitmo and graymail etc., it would be a good idea to have a workable copy of the entire opinion from which to work.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 02:43 PM
maryrose, should Fitz dismiss or lose, Libby is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs. As I'm informed they now total over $7 million, that will be something.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 02:44 PM
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said,
'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,"' Musharraf said."
Gee that won't endear him to the liberals at all. They must be getting very confused.
I'm still hoping that the Dems base their campaign on "Civil Rights for Terrorists".
I kept wondering if Judge Walton was thinking of the terrorists when he wrote this opinion when I was reading it.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Freak are you being stupid just for the effect or are you really as stupid as you are making yourself sound?
If you care so much for prisoner's rights, why aren't you down at your county jail stopping the daily abuse going on in this country at the hands of the police and sheriff's departments?
Illegal foreign combatants have no right to see American classified intelligence and I'd be the first to go after anyone who wanted to give it to them.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 02:50 PM
maryrose, should Fitz dismiss or lose, Libby is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs. As I'm informed they now total over $7 million, that will be something.
OK, ok, in the clarice love-fest that JOM has become (deservedly so! deservedly so! ;-), let me be the first to quip....
Well, whatever reimbursement clarice gets when the case is dismissed will not be nearly what she deserves
Posted by: hit and run | September 21, 2006 at 02:52 PM
Libby's motions are merely stalling tactics which, if successful, do him no harm. Redacted docs, if made available, will increase the jury's reasonable doubt regardless of their exculpatory value.
He is, however, entitled to pursue any means of securing his favorable judgement, unlike
other ACCUSED terrorists, who are denied any
legal recourse.
But then, under the 1% doctrine of Cheney's
design, only 99% of those held, despite their innocence, is acceptable to Maguire and his fellow apologists. Let's hope he
does not become a victim of that selfsame
sense of justice and fair play.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 02:54 PM
That's one of the benefits of citizenship Cleo. But then again, Libby wasn't picked up on a battlefield.
Posted by: danking70 | September 21, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Neither was Padilla.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 03:02 PM
looking at the world of unintended consequences, will Libby's win here entitle terrorists to likewise get access to classified information if it is deemed relevant to their defense?
Posted by: steve sturm | September 21, 2006 at 03:11 PM
Padilla apologist-great idea for a democrat
Posted by: paulv | September 21, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Notice whose name is mentioned first in the first paragraph of this story...and whose is mentioned second...and whose actual name is not given at all?
That is a masterpiece of spin.
Posted by: Wilson's a Liar | September 21, 2006 at 03:18 PM
looking at the world of unintended consequences, will Libby's win here entitle terrorists to likewise get access to classified information if it is deemed relevant to their defense?
I don't know the answer to this, but as I said above, I kept wondering if that was the source of J. Walton's generosity.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 03:18 PM
unlike other ACCUSED terrorists, who are denied any legal recourse.
I didn't know Libby was accused of terrorism.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 03:22 PM
If we get this up on html we can sensibly discuss it. Off the top of my head I think it has no relation to Gitmo frankly --This is according to the rules for federal criminal defendants in US courts.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 03:22 PM
Clarice: what makes you so sure that some judge won't in the future apply this standard to terrorists being held in Guantanamo?
Posted by: steve sturm | September 21, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Clarice,
Send it to me and I'll post it at Flares.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2006 at 03:25 PM
"I'm still hoping that the Dems base their campaign on "Civil Rights for Terrorists". "
That, was what I was referencing.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 03:30 PM
This appears to be the gist:
And basically goes on to adopt the defense argument that the rules of evidence govern. Interestingly, the following appears to contain a hint to make this stinker go away. Also, I'm assuming "unpublished" was meant as "unpunished" . . . but it was more entertaining as written.Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 21, 2006 at 03:35 PM
CT;
I assume the 'stinker', is the case against Libby from your perspecitve, rather than
the stinking 'fox'(Bush machinations) charged with guarding the henhouse of the 'rule of law.'
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 03:41 PM
"illegal foreign combatants"
Honestly, Sara Squiggly, I always thought you were illegal after a trial, not before.
I know where you're coming from-so why bother with the charade of a trial when you already know the outcome. That's what commies did.
Either just kill people without a trial or do it the American way. But spare me the commie-like faux trial apparatus.
Posted by: freaknik | September 21, 2006 at 03:44 PM
The Judge cites a ruling in the Zacharias Moussaouie case suggesting that the government has the option of dismissing rather than revealing state secrets. Thus the link to terrorists.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Well they've reached agreement in the Senate and are about to hold a press conference.
Hey cleo, why don't you volunteer to house the terrorists and let them interact with your family and plan their attacks from your house?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 03:46 PM
Also, I'm assuming "unpublished" was meant as "unpunished" . . . but it was more entertaining as written.
"Unpublished" seems to fit large parts of this fiasco even better than "unpunished."
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 03:49 PM
We don't give classified info that includes sources and methods period, citizen or illegal terrorist. Why cleo and his group want to give the terrorists more rights than we enjoy is beyond me. Why do they deserve extra rights.
And how are they being denied when their counsel and the judge can see anything. Do you seriously want the Sheik to have the names, dates, places and methods of all our intelligence in the War? Why? I just don't get it.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 03:49 PM
The HTML conversion of Walton's decision is up at Flares. I'll correct the more egregious errors as I have time but it's readable now.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2006 at 03:50 PM
"Hey cleo, why don't you volunteer to house the terrorists and let them interact with your family and plan their attacks from your house?'
A better idea is just to execute everyone and hope a terrorist is among them. That stinking thinking is why your people have to go.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 03:51 PM
Padilla was a member of Al Qaeda. Another distinction overlooked.
I wonder which Democrat will start the free Padilla movement.
Posted by: danking70 | September 21, 2006 at 04:05 PM
A better idea is just to execute everyone and hope a terrorist is among them.
Maybe you can turn it into a bumper sticker.
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 04:06 PM
danking70;
Hopefully, you will never be charged with a crime, but if you are;
Will someone undertake your cause if there is no cash or political hay to be made from doing so? When your guilt is clear to the public should that suspend your rights under the law?
Go ahead and parse away.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 04:11 PM
Honestly, Sara Squiggly, I always thought you were illegal after a trial, not before . . . Either just kill people without a trial or do it the American way.
No, the determination of whether they're unlawful comes before trial (because POW's aren't subject to trial), and, per Quirin, this is the "American way":
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 21, 2006 at 04:13 PM
"That stinking thinking is why your people have to go." is catchier.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 04:14 PM
I find this interesting, esp. in comparison with the ACLU cases against the NSA TSP, where the government is the defendant, and it most likely can keep classified information away from the other parties. The differences are first that this matter is criminal and the others, civil, and secondly, that here, the government controls the case by being the prosecutor, and in the NSA cases, the ACLU, et al. control.
I think though that Fitz shot himself in the foot most with the last prong of his suggested test - let the government have the final decision as to whether to admit the evidence. It may help exonerate the defendant, but if Fitz thinks that it should stay secret, then tough. If he had stopped after #1 and #2, then he might have left an out for the judge.
I am not an expert by any means in this area. But the general feeling I got reading all those NSA TSP filings was that some courts actually did some filtering of classified information for relevance in criminal cases. And that makes sense to me, since the contrary position would leave the government open to discovery blackmail from fishing expeditions primarily aimed at disclosing classified information for the sake of leveraging that into a dismissal.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | September 21, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Laws make things untidy for a purpose.
Arbitrary enforcement of 'justice' remains a highly subjective experience.
'Dirty Harry' movies were popular because the public does not exercise
with a judicial regimen. Criminals ignore the legal system until it benefits them to fully exercise their rights. Frustration with 'poison fruit' evidence and the subsequent release of perps who were obviously guilty to any observer, made street corner justice, in fantasy, a viable alternative. This admin has decided to take Eastwood movies and make them real. Bush and Crew see themselves as
Benevolent Dictators and see no Consititutional inconsistency in their behaviors. Subverted by ingroup mentality, they have stewed in their own proverbial juices so long that hemlock tastes like tonic. It's time for them to go.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Can you all see this? I posted the document in html format, butnot sure it's public. Somebody check and see?
http://www.quicktopic.com/cgi-bin/docrevfix.cgi?mode=newdoctop&forum=38&topic=LvHmYwMfEch
Posted by: SunnyDay | September 21, 2006 at 04:24 PM
"That stinking thinking is why your people have to go." is catchier.
but not as accurate a representation of your thinking as the previous statement
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 04:25 PM
It's time for them to go.
Shouldn't you be working on global warming?
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 04:28 PM
Well Korematsu has never been explicitly overruled either, so I guess sticking every American of Middle Eastern descent into a camp for the duration of this War on Terror is the American way too (i.e. war on a noun-is it not over until Websters takes it out the dictionary?).
I know you guys don't believe in evolution-but things, do indeed, evolve.
Posted by: freaknik | September 21, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Shouldn't you be defoliating rainforests?
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 04:37 PM
semantic
You missed the reference. Try again, in a sing song voice, wooden arm adding emphasis.. heavy sigh, slight lisp
its time, for them, to go
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 04:42 PM
Interesting reading. Judge Walton seemed to think that Fitz was trying to import into the CIPA a balancing test specifically rejected by Congress when passing the law. And, yes, it does appear that Fitz's suggested prong #3 was the reason that the government's position was rejected here. That was the balancing test that Congress had rejected.
The judge did throw in some cites about a defendant's right to put on a defense in a criminal trial being central to our ideas of justice. I wonder whether he would have still rejected Fitz's proposed test if Congress had adopted the balancing test instead.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | September 21, 2006 at 04:48 PM
freak:
Who is it that says (1) how the law "evolves", and (2) which of the SCOTUS cases from WWII are no longer good law?
I submit to you that until SCOTUS overrules them, those cases are at least a place to start.
What leads you to believe that Cecil's quote from Quirin is not still good law?
I noted that you did not take that on directly, but chose instead to take on Korematsu, a "straw man" if there ever was one.
What is your argument against Cecil's quote?
That the case is old?
Posted by: vnjagvet | September 21, 2006 at 04:51 PM
In addition to heavy duty pain meds for my injured back, I have a horrendous head cold with very blurry eyes, so I'm counting on everyone else to read the new filing and fill us all in. Pretty please.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 04:54 PM
"""Well Korematsu has never been explicitly overruled either, so I guess sticking every American of Middle Eastern descent into a camp for the duration of this War on Terror is the American way too """
No, that was the Democrat way. they are quite mean spirited you know.....
Posted by: Patton | September 21, 2006 at 04:55 PM
Well Korematsu has never been explicitly overruled either, so I guess . . .
Nice try. Perusing Hamdan, I'd note they refer to Quirin repeatedly (84 times by my count). So unless you're suggesting Quirin has ceased to be a valid precedent in the last few months (since June 29, 2006), my thinkin' is that you need to come up with a new argument.
And that makes sense to me, since the contrary position would leave the government open to discovery blackmail . . .
Walton's reasoning covers some of that (and is probably worth reading in its entirety). My non-lawyerly reading of Walton's position is that the court screening was done once in discovery, and wasn't appropriate a second time, except as provided for in the rules of evidence.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 21, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Cecil:
I don't think freak will be answering your question.
Cheap shots are just cheap.
Posted by: vnjagvet | September 21, 2006 at 05:00 PM
That's funny, I always thought the Constitution was Intelligently Designed.
Posted by: The Unbeliever | September 21, 2006 at 05:02 PM
Semanticleo
You are basically arguing for us to scrap the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Syl | September 21, 2006 at 05:05 PM
Cecil,
That was my reading too, for what it's worth.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 05:05 PM
Yeah Hamdan, right-deal with it. Quirin is strictly procedural nowadays. From page 1 of the opinion:
Justice Stevens-for the court:
"Absent a more specific congressional authorization, this Court's task is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan's military commission is so justified. ... The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."
1949 is post-Quirin btw.
So as I said things evolve.
How we are going to run these commissions is being debated as we speak. I'd prefer our modern American ways-thanks very much.
Posted by: freaknik | September 21, 2006 at 05:08 PM
Will someone undertake your cause if there is no cash or political hay to be made from doing so?
Certainly not the ACLU.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Walton also suggested that, "if the government is still not satisfied that the classified information is adequately protected at the conclusion of these hearings, the government has the power to preclude entirely the introduction at trial of the classified information. While invocation of this option may require dismissal of this case."
Wow. The http://www.drudgereport.com/>headline at Drudge caused me to do a double take.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 05:14 PM
"Will someone undertake your cause if there is no cash or political hay to be made from doing so?
Of course there would. If it was just a regular crime and I had no cash, I would be assigned an attorney. If I committed treason, there would be supporters coming out of the woodworks. Bet you and Soros would even throw a few bucks towards my defense.
Posted by: danking70 | September 21, 2006 at 05:20 PM
""""I know you guys don't believe in evolution-but things, do indeed, evolve."""
No, they have the original Constitution at the Library of Congress. I called, it has not evolved at all...hasn't grown wings, developed feathers, added webbed feet. I even asked them to look at its under belly and nothing. Go figure.
They said they did catch Sandy Berger about to go at it with a eraser and pencil, but they stopped him.
Posted by: Patton | September 21, 2006 at 05:32 PM
"Absent a more specific congressional authorization, this Court's task . . . "
Was to ignore the AUMF and rewrite the laws of war. The obvious response is to provide a more specific congressional authorization (as, in Quirin, Article 15--or the current legislative proposals), though as Justice Thomas's dissent makes clear, the Court's tortuous reading of the UCMJ is hard to justify.
I don't think freak will be answering your question.
Irish comes up with the occcasional flash. This one wasn't it, but . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 21, 2006 at 05:35 PM
Sue,
re Drudge - Rangel and Pelosi have every reason to be outraged with Chavez. They've worked hard for six years to develop that message and they don't need some damn foreigner borrowing it and acting like he invented it. Chavez could have at least started his harangue with a "My friends at the DNC tell me..." The common Socialist principles that Rangel and Pelosi share with Chavez do not extend to plagiarism.
Rangel and Pelosi did the right thing - it's their message and Chavez had no right to use it without attribution.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 21, 2006 at 05:41 PM
What is hillarious to me is that the HRW/ACLU types are acting like the secret detainees were in a hole somewhere where the CIA could do what it pleased with them. Baloney. There were strict guidlines, hashed out by an army of gov't lawyers who made sure that no interrogation technique crossed the line into physical harm or permanant disability. And there was also oversite. Al Qaeda is looking at this debate and laughing. The next time one of them gets caught, he/she will spit in the interrogator's face, and tell them about their rights under the Geneva Convention--and three thousand airline passangers will end up as fish food.
When that day happens, I sure wouldn't want to be John McCain.
The Northern Alliance had an effective way to handle AlQaeda prisoners. Trial by cargo container. Considering how badly they had suffered under the Taliban..well, walk a mile in my shoes as they say.
Posted by: verner | September 21, 2006 at 05:41 PM
The fact that people, even after arguments about it for years now, still have no real grasp of the geneva conventions, and how they work, is beyond me.
Case in point is freak. He seems to believe that the Geneva Conventions - if they apply to terrorists caught on battlefields - gauruntees a criminal law trial with all of the rights of the U.S. Constitution and laws of the U.S. However, pursuant to the Geneva Conventions themselves do not provide captured soldiers/enemy combatents with such rights. This is even assuming that such terrorist should be covered by the Geneva Conventions in the first instance, which is debatable, 1) b/c they do not abide by the conventions and 2) b/c no terrorist or terrorist organization is a signatory, so are not really supposed to be protected by the conventions, as the conventions are a treaty that apply to signatories.
Leftsists routinesly throw out the Conventions and make all kinds of bald assertions in relation to them, but seem to have no actual grasp of what the Conventions actually say or mean.
You would think that after 2 or 3 years of media attention on the Conventions and the "rights" of detainees, people would be fairly well educated about the Conventions so that we could have a reasonable debate about how to go forward, or what our policy should be. Instead, we get people making foolish claims that have no bearing in fact and make rational debate impossible.
Of course, the fact that the media never actually represent the Conventions properly, and are just as ignorant as what the Conventions say or mean may be the source of this problem.
- GB
Posted by: Great Banana | September 21, 2006 at 05:41 PM
I really don't understand these lefties argument, at one time, all these 'terrorists' we captured are "innocent" in their view, YET at the same time, they keep complaining why GWB hasn't killed Bin Laden.
Given their position, you would think they would consider killing Bin Laden as an act of cold blooded murder. After all, he hasn't had any trial, he hasn't been found guilty.
I keep hearing the liberals asking why he's not dead yet...but at the same time they claim it would be illegal to kill him.
I would guess if they were in charge, you could only use law enforcement to attempt to catch Bin laden and charge him with a crime.
They seem to throw that whole Declaration of War thing out the window....
Posted by: Patton | September 21, 2006 at 05:43 PM
The left has been appeasing people for so long they no longer understand this thing called warfare.
That if a couple of Americans in Chicago rob a bank, you send in the police, but if a couple of Al Queda rob a bank in Afghanistan, you can send in a F-15 and drop a 2,000 lb bomb on them and it is perfectly legal.
Of course, they yearn for the day when our soldiers would be tried for killing those poor third world souls (err, forgot, they don't have souls, according to the left)
Posted by: Patton | September 21, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Rick,
I'm sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I was referring to the one that said "Fitzgerald given way out of Libby case;...". It is on the left hand side of the page.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 21, 2006 at 05:58 PM
And by the way Freak, if we are just an evolved bunch of protoplasm that oozed out of the muck, and we believe in survival of the fitest, etc. What would possibly be the reason for any moral argument about treating these terrorist fairly?
Why don't we just shoot them all in the head??
Posted by: Patton | September 21, 2006 at 05:59 PM
The best thing Rick, was when Chavez held up Chomsky's book.
I wonder if those legendary undecided voters who, according to the MSM and the polls, will be pulling the "d" in the midterms realize that about half of the democrat base thinks Noam Chomsky is god. Yep, they would take us in a newd irection alright.
Patton: As far as Bin Laden being innocent until proven guilty--wasn't that the reason Bill Clinton didn't wack him? My how things change.
Posted by: verner | September 21, 2006 at 06:01 PM
"Why don't we just shoot them all in the head??"
The last one standing has the moral high ground. Pretty good for a mass of redundant
protoplasm.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 21, 2006 at 06:04 PM
Yesterday the WSJ printed an Andrew McCarthy Commentary story "How the courts forced me to give sensitive information to Osama bin Laden". Sample:
Posted by: cathyf | September 21, 2006 at 06:13 PM
Verner,
Even better when Chavez said he wished he'd met Chomsky before he died.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 21, 2006 at 06:17 PM
Cathyf,
Can you imagine the amount of information leaked,methods compromized and sources killed if all the Gitmo Guys ended up with Lynn Stewart type lawyers with access to classified information?
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 21, 2006 at 06:32 PM
Thomas: No, really! Didn't catch that.
Here's an interview with the divine Noam from voltairenet (a french outfit linked to La Rouche)
http://www.voltairenet.org/article143519.html
Posted by: verner | September 21, 2006 at 07:01 PM
Even better when Chavez said he wished he'd met Chomsky before he died.
I know a lot of liberals who are in mourning now, since Chavez only speaks the truth.
~
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 07:15 PM
Oh Lord Jane, when Noam finally goes to glory (soon fingers crossed), it will be like the pope--only bigger. Esp. where you live. I can hear it now "Noamus Maximus" through the streets of Boston. They'll pickle him like Lenin and put him on display at MIT.
Posted by: verner | September 21, 2006 at 07:31 PM
YOu know I have to admit I'm about as ignorant as it comes about Noam Chomsky. I always thought it was interesting that a person with such an odd name would devote his life to linguistics; and I never thought linguistics was all that big of a deal at MIT; but mostly I've never met a supporter of Chomsky's work who wasn't so far off his rocker that he needed to be institutionalized.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 07:42 PM
Chomsky is known to be one of the best linguists. The problem is that he professes to be an expert in those areas that he has no business to be in or that he has the absolutely wrong ideas about terrorism and Islamo preachings and beliefs. He is NOT an expert on those areas of Islam preachings and beliefs.
Posted by: lurker | September 21, 2006 at 07:45 PM
Jane: Have a martini (if you're so inclined) go surf at z-net, and have a nice giggle. You'll know more about Noam than you need to in about five minutes.
I will say this about him though, he kept the geoncide in East Timor in the news, though now he seems to be supporting the people who tried to butcher Timorese in the name of Allah. Funny how the world turns.
Posted by: verner | September 21, 2006 at 07:54 PM
Even better when Chavez said he wished he'd met Chomsky before he died.
Gosh, I didn't even know Chomsky was sick.
Any chance of Hugo appearing on a round of MTV's "Dead or Canadian"?
Here is a link to the MSNBC story by Joel Seidman citing Fitzgerald's exit invitation:
By eerie coincidence, I have a draft (not yet published) of the last Seidman article on The Armitage Effect. He criticized the sloppy investigation and noted that Armtiage's emergence creates confusion (especially with Woodward), but never mentioned Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert, two NBC reporters with obvious ties to the case.
And a day later he is telling us that Fitzgerald is being invited to go home. Gee, his agenda?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 21, 2006 at 08:41 PM
As I said over on the other thread, I think the newsies latched on to it as their way out. Given that the case started as journalists fantasizing a crime into being and getting a special prosecutor name to "investigate" it, it seems bizarrely appropriate that it end with journalists wishing really really really hard that it go away. Think of it as the Tinkerbell Strategy.
Posted by: cathyf | September 21, 2006 at 08:57 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 21, 2006 at 08:59 PM
And a day later he is telling us that Fitzgerald is being invited to go home. Gee, his agenda?
You know, good lawyers, know when to fold them. And at that point, nothing is more important than saving face. It will hurt us deeply if it happens that way, but if you represent Libby, it's a huge victory for the good guys, and everyone paying attention will know exactly what happened.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 09:12 PM
TM, Are you suggesting the media (especially MSNBC) is desperately hoping someone will sweep this under the rug?
Lots of luck with that one. If the case is dismissed, I hope Libby writes a book and goes on a speaking tour. And I hope the pressure on the DoJ compels an internal investigation.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 09:17 PM
And Chomsky spent a few days in Palestine harping about his hatred towards Israel AND wanting Israel destroyed!!
Posted by: lurker | September 21, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Also, if this case is dismissed, would that weaken the Wilsons' lawsuit considerably so?
Posted by: lurker | September 21, 2006 at 09:29 PM
If the case is dropped, does that actually strengthen the case for an OPR investigation? Going all the way to the Supreme Court in order to get somebody thrown in jail for 85 days is a pretty big thing to end up with "Oh, never mind."
Posted by: cathyf | September 21, 2006 at 09:36 PM
Not sweep it under the rug - but rather, know when the jig us up.
Pretend for a second that Fitzgerald entered into and pursued this investigation in good faith. He relied on people who took him for a ride, and got led down a garden path, with assurances that it was the proper road.
At some point you cut your losses. And you don't do it with a huge mea culpa and an announcement that you were duped, you do it quietly in a way that saves face.
I've spent an entire career making sure that my side is legitimate, in ever case I take. I take every precaution to make sure I'm not on the losing end of things. I think litigation is stupid when it only lines the lawyer's pocket. But I've been duped, and I think every honest lawyer has.
And if there is that a smart lawyer on the other side - and I have no doubt that libby's lawyer is very smart, he will make it very easy on the prosecutor to bow out at that point, because that is in the best interest of his client.
But make no mistake, if that happens it is a result of all the pressure brought to bear, including your latest letter Clarice.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 09:38 PM
Fitzgerald has been handed the golden goose, if he is so inclinded to accept it. We'll see how strong he thinks his case is on what he does with this, don't you think?
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Lurker,
The civil standard of proof (more probable than not) is different than from the criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt). It is certainly possible to win the criminal case and lose the civil case (think OJ) altho I think in this matter, the wind is firmly behind Libby's back.
The criminal case will not provide any satisfaction to us with respect to the scum that is Wilson. He's rather tangential in that matter. But he and Val are front and center in the civil case. My guess tho, is that Judge Bates won't allow us all those sordid pleasures. Some circuses, while more fun than a barrel of monkey are just to stupid to keep going.
Posted by: Jane | September 21, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Sad,
No to Fitz escaping his weasly case and leaving Libby under a cloud of suspicion with his case dismissed for a technicality.
Even if Libby is found not guilty at a trial, it wouldn't change the mind of people like Jeff, EW, Jane Hamsher, Scary, et al. A win on a technicality is a win for Libby. I would imagine he'll take it.
Posted by: Sue | September 21, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Drudge has a headline up that says reporters to be jailed in Barry Bonds probe. Is this a here we go again?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 09:53 PM
Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were sentenced to a maximum 18 months in prison Thursday, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked transcripts of the testimony of Bonds, Jason Giambi and others before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, a Burlingame-based nutritional supplement company exposed as a steroid ring two years ago.
Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to send the pair to prison for the full term of the grand jury investigating the leak, or until they agree to testify. Both sides have agreed to stay the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Thanks, Jane. I think these media generated nothingburgers have their own tempo and with the Woodward and Armitage disclosures the beat is no longer with Fitz.
I doubt I had much to do with it, with the exception that the media knows a lot of us have their number on this one, and they are one move away from Rather (The Pincus pre- June 12 conversation with an "undisclosed" other about whose I.D. I have little doubt has so far been pretty much under the radar. But a close look at the WaPo coverage after that disclosure would surely show that with Woodward, Pincus and Bradley at a minimum knowing full well that Armitage was the "leak" the paper covered up and accused the WH.)
That Fitz hasn't dismissed this sooner is troubling. Whether he does so now, should not let him off the hook for acting as Kerry/Wilson/the media's idiot butt boy for 3 years.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 09:57 PM
Sue,
I said that very badly. Libby obviously needs this nightmare ended. I want Fitz held accountable for what he's done to Libby and Rove, as well as for what he has done to the President and VP; acknowledgement of his mistakes aired as publicly as false allegations against Libby, Rove, Bush and Cheney were for starters.
Posted by: sad | September 21, 2006 at 09:57 PM
I doubt we'll ever see that, sad.
Posted by: clarice | September 21, 2006 at 10:03 PM
I can see it now ... Fitz having to stand before the judge and make an elocution of his "crimes" against we the people. LOL.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 10:05 PM
Don't you wish sometimes that we still used the old system of putting people in the stocks, letting their humiliation be of the public variety?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | September 21, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Sue
It would be the smart move at this point.
Sort of like the old adage of keeping your mouth shut,and being thought a fool,rather than speaking and removing all doubt.
Go home Fitz,have some Pizza.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | September 21, 2006 at 10:07 PM