Powered by TypePad

« A Quick Memory Test | Main | Libby Thread - Friday Afternoon [OK, Thursday] »

February 14, 2007

Comments

biomom

I reread the York article and see now that he IS talking about the Armitage-Woodward leak. Sorry for the sloppy reading. Perhaps I should change my profession to reporting for the MSM. But Fitzgerald surely knew about the Armitage-Novak leak well before trying to set his perjury traps and unearth the so-called "conspiracy". I will never feel quite the same about our justice system again after closely following this trial.

azaghal

Since it seems to be a somewhat slow day, here's a link to an article that Walton would probably find tangential and irrelevant.

Cultural_Marxism">http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html">Cultural_Marxism

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

And, even "funnier business," too. The NBC lawyer using his BlackBerry INSIDE WALTOON'S COURT ROOM. And, no marshal came and took it away. INDEED.

Alcibiades

I wonder if MarkO would be willing to participate.

Imagine if we could field MarkO and Clarice against Jane Hamsher and Empty Head!

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: MARK O.

Grateful to ya in so many ways!

And, yes, thanks too for the up-tick. To be FOREWARNED is to be FORE-ARMED. You remind me of PAUL REVERE.

Jane

Clarice,

Is there any way that the defense can reference Fitz words in his press conference where he announced that Libby was the first person to leak Plames name?

Something like - "you will recall lots of back stories circulating about this matter - When The prosecutor announced the charges that you are here to decide he said "SCooter Libby was the first person to mention Joe Wilson's wife to the press." Yet we learn from Bob Woodward that Richard Armitage was the person who spread that rumor."

Is that permissible? I can't seem to sort it out in my mind?

Sue

have you read Triple Cross?

No. But now I want to. Thanks.

clarice

Cal, On the right hand side of the front page there's a hyperlink to Polly's timeline which goes day by day, monthby month, year by year thru the case.

Whitehall, I think there are still 5 counts. In the obstruction count, however, what began as 3 prongs (Russert,Cooper and Miller) are now two prongs, the prosecution having failed to introduce any relevant evidence re the named July 12 Miller-Libby conversation.

Alcibiades

And the sad fact is Clinton was guilty of far more than he was held accountable for

I always say that if the blogosphere had existed back then, the outcome would have been very different.

clarice

Jane--the parties can only refer to matters in evidence and the presser wasn't.
It works both ways though. IIRC it was never brought into evidence that Woodward waited 2 years to tell the SP that Armitage told him in June..The record is only that Armitage did tell him in June and he revealed that to the sp

Ralph L.

Sounds like another ongoing dereliction of duty by the DoJ more than reversible error. I still get mad about the Clinton FBI files non-case, but it pales next to the NSA and SWIFT leaks' (apparent) lack of action.

MaidMarion

I haven't been reading JOM these past two days but plan to post a short note with some observations (if not tomorrow then probably Saturday).

But I just reread my notes on what the NBC lawyer said Feb 8 afternoon during the legal discussion on whether or not Mitchell should be allowed to testify. The government went on and on about what Mitchell would deny on the stand and I wrote down that they said "she will deny she knew anything about Wilson's wife." Then I wrote in parens my own thoughts (What about Valerie Plame?)

For some reason the NBC lawyer felt the need to speak, got up, went to the microphone and said to the effect that his client (Mitchell) "will stipulate that she received no rumor about Wilson's wife being employed at the CIA."

Last week I was consumed by this because it seemed to me they were parsing "Wilson's wife" with "Valerie Plame."

Now I'm seeing something else as a possiblity: I think the NBC lawyer needed to correct the prosecution's description of what his client would say. It's not that Mitchell would deny that she knew anything about Wilson's wife! It's that she would deny receiving a "rumor" about the wife.

Hhhmmmm....

Russert flatly denied under oath that he was the recipient of a "leak". But Mitchell wasn't going to testify as not having received a "leak"...she was going to testify that she hadn't received any "rumors".

She had already received the "truth" from Armitage back around June 12th...about the same time Woodward did...probably before he did. She was the one who called Libby back on the 11th to "confirm" Armitage. Having seen the embargoed Novak article, she probably wanted to break the news before it was published on the 14th.

centralcal

jwest: I posted at 6:20 AM today:

"I always go to TalkLeft to read Jeralyn's recap and to view the video she does with Hamsher and Empty.

We need video recaps with Clarice!!!!! And don't you just love yesterday's recap, taped at "Plame House!" I wonder if Joe and Val were hiding out in the kitchen?"

I beat you by about an hour. Seriously, JOM really needs to video blog!

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Oh-kay, NBC is saying Russert's Larry King Live PERFORMANCE, was canned. And, he was reading script.

Not bad. Usually when the left dines on other people, they remember to "chew slowly." Here, it seems Larry King's reputation (as providing LIVE TV), gets destroyed in one gulp.

I'm watching.

centralcal

MaidMarion - You're back. Hooray. I hounded Clarice all day yesterday - "Where is MaidMarion?" Okay - got that off my chest, now I will read your comments.

Was worried about you!

verner

Jane, I don't see why Wells, in the name of truth and justice, shouldn't be allowed to re-play Fitz's entire press conference for the jury--followed by a methodical take down of how his entire case was built on a big pile of poo. Someone is throwing sand alright--right in the jury's face.

Add his hounding of Libby in front of the GJ, in contrast to the feather light treatment given to Armitage, Ari, the NBC gang. I think York was right, the jurors might have gotten a little unintended nuance from Mr. Fitz.

And let's not forget, when that presser took place, he had known all along that Armitage leaked to Novak--not Scooter. Not to mention Ari, who is even worse at getting his story straight than Libby.

clarice

MM! How interesting! Glad to have you back!

Sara (Squiggler

'Ere now. Uma isn't Diana Rigg, but she's hot, and a good Buddhist girl besides

Uma????? Who knew? I thought Clarice was referring to our gal Val.

And good morning to all from chilly Inland Empire, Southern Calif.

Another Bob

I always say that if the blogosphere had existed back then, the outcome would have been very different.

Posted by: Alcibiades | February 15, 2007 at 08:45 AM

Not to be a wet blanket but I don't see that as a supportable position.

You'd also have the left-wing blogosphere that would have been dragging even more out about Clinton's various accusers, etc.

And in a battle between the LW blogs and the RW blogs, the LW blogs appear to be more connected with the people in power.

That's not to say I wouldn't want someone, somewhere to do a serious investigation into Clinton connections with the Chinese before people are asked to cast votes for Hillary.

MaidMarion

Gotta sign off right now, though. Mucho other stuff I've been ignoring for the past two weeks that I have to take care of...

fdcol63

Video recaps with Clarice.

A Malkinesque, "Hot Air"-type Clarice video presentation would be interesting, indeed.

CAL

Thx clarice.

Re: Armitage and the obstruction charge

IANAL but is it relevant to the obstruction charge to show that Fitz didn't bother to check what a known leaker had been up to in that time period?

If he had bothered to ask, he would have found out Libby wasn't the first. I think it shows if nothing else that Fitz ran a half-assed investigation.

Ralph L.

Alcibiades, then Gore would have been handily reelected in 2000. ugh. Sometimes things work out for the best.

MM, you've certainly put your Clinton-parsing training to good use. No doubt NBC has too.

clarice

Later,MM.

Other Tom:
"Pretty outrageous stuff; not only did he leak it, but when it started showing up in the press he filed and indignant motion with the court, seeking to get his client dismissed because of unlawful, prejudicial leaking by the proseution. Positively Clintonian"

Don't ever forget Sidney Blumenthal standing on the courthouse steps slandering Starr by utterly misrepresenting what he'd been asked before the gj knowing full well Starr could not respond.

Or this little Clintonista game when Berger got caught.http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/07/who_knew_1.html>who knew

centralcal

fdcol63: Wouldn't a collaboration between Malkin and Clarice have been great! Sadly, Clarice may not be back for the closing arguments -- that would have been a great maiden video!

Whitehall

Clarice,

Are you sure that there are still five counts against Libby? Didn't one get dropped because Fitz offered no evidence in support of his claim?

Perhaps I'm confused but I need a bit more Clarici-fication on this point.

jwest

Centralcal,

A video portion is critical, but the organization, summary presentation and ease of access to the underlying information would be the key to becoming the “go to” resource.

To paraphrase a philosophical question:

“If Clarice finds the smoking gun lying in the forest and there is no one there to show it to, is it still a smoking gun?”

JOM has thrown more time and talent at this case than all the networks and print media combined, but we are the only ones who know it. We can’t allocate resources like TM, Clarice, TS and all the other top researchers and analysts here for what is an organizational task.

We need someone who lives for outlines. Someone who not only knows how to diagram a sentence, but believes it’s a mission from God.

Let the chosen one step forward and identify themselves to the Justice League.

sbw

Posted this at Althouse. Is it a fair summary?

Ann,

Grouping bloggers together reminds me of how racism was once defined -- ignorant overgeneralization. It is worth parsing out:

1) FiredogLake's live-blogging was an excellent public service [so long as you ignored the catty, ill-founded remarks in the square brackets] but the comments' tended toward dogmatic BDS (Bush-Derangement Syndrome) irrationality that added little insight.

2) Just One Minute was more interested in teasing out the facts and connections of the case, even if it eventually pointed towards Libby's guilt. The collective memory and intellect was focused, above all, on understanding -- systematically but genially dissecting BDS trolls who sought to disrupt the process.

That distinction made, in the end, the whole enchilada appears to be that Joe Wilson, a State Department has-been so obsessed by his own vanity that he outed his own wife and who a year earlier said uranium was sought by Iraq in Africa before he said it was not sought by Iraq, was used as a cheap, throwaway dirty trick by the Kerry campaign to dupe lazy pseudojournalists from the NYTimes, Newsweek, WaPo, Time, and NBC, which led Senate Democratic politics-is-a-dirty-game-players like Chuck Schumer, to push for a rabid, unfettered special prosecutor like Fitzgerald, who, in a previous life bested by attorney Scooter Libby, then broke all the DOJ rules in fruitless a hunt to bring down Dick Cheney, and whose investigation immunized the wrong people and didn't follow up the simplest leads that would have lead to Richard Armitage, the original leaker of non-covert operative Valarie Plame Wilson's identity, who likely leaked Plame's relationship to several journalists because of a turf war with the CIA, an organization that, like State, also has leaked like a sieve whenever the bureaucrats disagreed with the administration, and that, like State, has yet to be held accountable by the equally irresponsible Department of Justice.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

RHETORICAL QUESTION: WHEN IS A WITNESS STAND ALSO A BOX?

Seems to me it's a ROACH MOTEL, here, where Russert is trapped. If not with this jury? In time, with public opinion, just the same.

And, adding fuel to the fire is the statement made by NBC, that on Larry King, it's canned stuff. You think this slips by King? If so? How so?

Why not think of this "box" as tight as the one Dan RaTHer sat upon in the old days? Well, old, now. C-BS retired that anchor; tossing it overboard from Black Rock. And, their ratings have never been the same!

As to Russert? He lied.

How long will it take for most people to catch the wiff of this? Dreck-N-rode stuff under their shoes. And, yes, Walloon should hang up his spurs. Doesn't go very well, anyway, with judicial robes.

As to the Supremes? Should this case eventually land up there? It would meet my approval if Clarence Thomas SPEAKS during ORALS. And, also has the benefit of writing up the majority opinion. Majority rules. It's cleaned up more than fake roulette tables in Casa Blanca, ya know?

cathyf
ralph, I did a long piece on it at the time. You might want to look at the incredibly well-written brief Libby filed on this point. He had NO SUPERVISION at all, and argued that--get this--Comey and he had some esp about how he was to do his job and Comey could tell by reading press accounts if he should be reined in. I. Kid. You. Not.
Ralph -- it's even more amazing. The AG who recused himself was Ashcroft, and Comey was designated his stand-in to appoint Fitzgerald. Comey retired in the summer of 2005, and Ashcroft, of course, resigned right after the 2004 election. So whatever supervision Fitzgerald had earlier in the case was gone months before the indictment. Indeed, while Judy Miller was still in jail.

And another amazing factoid. After the expiration of the Independent Counsel law, the AG (Reno) drew up a series of rules for special prosecutor appointments. One of the few substantive rules is that all such prosecutors must come from outside the Department of Justice. Fitzgerald, of course, is the US attorney in Chicago, with a very full plate of federal corruption cases of Chicago politicians, and Chicago-area terrorism cases, etc.

clarice

Whitehall, I understand your confusion because initial reports were that one COUNT had been dropped, but it was only one Prong of one Count.

Here is what remains:
Count One (Obstruction) conversation with Russert 7/10 or 7/11 and conversation with Cooper 7/12
Count Two (false statments) re 7/10-7/11 conversation w/ Russert
Count Three (False statements) re conversation w/ Cooper
Count Four (perjury) Conversation w/ Russert
Count Five (perjury) Conversation w/ Cooper

clarice

WOW! sbw--tell us what you really think! Very good summary, I'd say.

centralcal

sbw: Excellent!

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

"P" on the mark! Perfect analogy. Fitz is beside himself!

And, Wells played his hand in an UNFRIENDLY GAME OF POKER. He used his "best" bluffs to indicate Fitz and Walloon could have their table bets making them rich customers in this casino.

Too bad.

And, yes, "P," I agree, too. Fitz rested because all he had ahead was his "prep" of the veep and Libby. All to naught.

If the jury convicts? A bunch of schmucks live in DC.

If the jury hangs? Well, the "red tee shirt was the last of the uninnamity." (Freud would have loved the affect, if the "singing juror" had said "Anna-nimony."

No clear cut chance, though, that they'll FREE LIBBY. Only the judge can do that. And, only if he's very, very afraid that "hanging out with the GANG at NBC, is on par with choosing the CRIPS over the BLOODS.

miriam

Clarice:

Here is what remains:
Count One (Obstruction) conversation with Russert 7/10 or 7/11 and conversation with Cooper 7/12
Count Two (false statments) re 7/10-7/11 conversation w/ Russert
Count Three (False statements) re conversation w/ Cooper
Count Four (perjury) Conversation w/ Russert
Count Five (perjury) Conversation w/ Cooper

The so-called false statements in these conversations can send Libby to jail? When those same reporters didn't give reliable answers at trial?

Am I in the right country?

I'm amazed and appalled.

Ralph L.

Diagram that sentence!
I think you're off on the timing of F's knowledge of Chestitage's leak, however. Didn't he know that when he started?

Other Tom

Clarice, how could I ever forget the dishonest reptile Blumenthal? What made the story so delightful was that, unfortunately for this low cad, he was recalled for a second session with the grand jury. The grand jurors were very well aware of his willful public lies about his first appearance, and the foreman promptly upbraided him for it like a schoolboy. He stood meekly and accepted his scolding. I was giddy with joy upon reading about it.

clarice

There's where we are..and I hope the jury has your reaction where Cooper's notes seem to confirm Libby's account and Russert couldn't even remember two phone calls he made on a subject nearst and dearest to him--himself--to the Buffalo News reporter, where the stipulation shows that nearer in time to the conversations he said he couldn't rule out Libby's account and where the record shows (probably incorrectly) that Fleischer told Russert's staffer, David Gregory.

centralcal

jwest: Your points are all well taken and I agree with them. However, sometimes one has to start somewhere. Videos are key to attracting interest in your information.

For example: TalkLeft includes the Hamsher/Wheel/Jeralyn video right inside her blog post. I think JOM could start with that at a minimum. Granted, the whole enchilada, as nicely outlined by you, would be better, but often these things come incrementally. A lot of folks have ADD when it comes to reading, but nearly everyone will sit still long enough for a video recap.

Rick Ballard

SBW,

An excellent summary except for:

even if it eventually pointed towards Libby's guilt.

If it were "regardless of whether it pointed towards.." I would agree but as written there's more than a hint of conclusion because of "eventually".

He ain't guilty of a crime in my eyes until someone presents evidence of the necessary mens rea. Guilty of babbling far too much, both to to Eckenrode and to the gj - yep. Guilty of giving up constitutional rights for whatever purpose - yep.

Guilty as charged - not without motive.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN

TO: JANE

RE: JURORS THINK MAYBE A BOOK DEAL?


Well, they've got a "working partner" in the juror who worked for Woodward. But from Mark Felt's complaints (that he didn't become a rich man), I can see that Woodward doesn't pay his partners all that well.

What comes to mind? SEINFELD. Who was the only one to profit from seven years of contractual work on his show. And, in the 8th? He pulled the plug after letting his co-actors get a taste of the "whine."

But, sure, Jane. A good catch. The jurors don't want to be "annonymous" when this is over. Which is how the "poet juror" got the word to come out, UN-AMBIGUOUSLY, as Not unanimous. Which is how I translate "unanimity." But each to his or her own dictionary.

Larry

"The true story of Watergate is that Alger Hiss really was a spy and that the left never forgave Nixon." Posted by: azaghal | February 15, 2007 at 08:28 AM I never made that connection, Azaghal, but there's probably a lot of truth in your assertion.

"Claricification". I like it. WTG Whitehall!

Great summary, SBW. Past tense of lead is led, one of the 3 words I misspelled in 19 years of formal academe, thereby qualifying me to appoint myself as your friendly spelling gestapo (S G).

CAL

Count One (Obstruction) conversation with Russert 7/10 or 7/11 and conversation with Cooper 7/12
Count Two (false statments) re 7/10-7/11 conversation w/ Russert
Count Three (False statements) re conversation w/ Cooper
Count Four (perjury) Conversation w/ Russert
Count Five (perjury) Conversation w/ Cooper

If this is all they have, why is the jury allowed to consider Millers testimony at all?

Sara (Squiggler

Would it be smart of Wells to say over and over in the closing, "you have heard hours and hours of Mr. Libby's testimony on these matters..." referring to the GJ testimony?

Also, since Fitz goes first, how much revision goes on with a defense attorney's close after hearing the close from the prosecutor?

Charlie (Colorado)

welcome to the best part of the day

It's nap time already?

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: OTHER TIME

Only because you raised the issue of those waivers ONE CLIENT signs, in a "multiple representation deal." And, you point out it contains language that sez da' lawyer can turn on someone, sort'a like disgarding one, for all? And, it dawned on me, that's exactly how I'd describe the PRISONER'S DILEMMA, in greater detail.

Screwed by lawyers is nothing new. That Martha Stewart picked up her wallet, and ran back to work, leaving empty meters UNFED of her money, still makes me smile.

Believe it or not, lawyers and court houses CAN BE avoided. Sane people find other ways to make solutions work. It's called win-win.

Sara (Squiggler

In fact, revise that to "the jury has heard hours and hours of Mr. Libby's testimony which was given with no legal counsel in the room and little time to review thousands of pages of notes and documents...unlike Mr. Russert who had an FBI spoon feed him the facts and apparently, even though Mr. Russert is a lawyer himself, did not know you don't get to have an attorney in the chamber because he was given kid glove treatment..."

centralcal

Oh. My. Gawd. Olbermann not only renewed his contract with MSNBC, he is going to cross-over and "report" for NBC News too!

http://media.nationalreview.com/

CAL

Sara,

Fitz is doing the rebuttal after the defense close I believe. He will get in the last words the jury hears. I suspect he will go back to the press conference language and big case again.

Ralph L.

Clarice, don't be so competitive. Oh, well you are a lawyer, guess you can't help it.

Charlie (Colorado)

Seems Andrea Mitchell has been pulling on that hand

Or at least on that finger.

clarice

Ralph, Huh?
Sara, defense counsel tries to anticipate the prosecution's opening and rebuttal, but has to be fast on his feet to revise his remarks to cover anything not anticipated.
It's very hard work, aided by try outs (here, probably before his team and a mock jury) and studying the Fitz' other closings in other trials.

Let me make something very clear..an error on either side--say, bringing in non-evidentiary matters or misstating crucial evidence is a big no no and can lead to an instant mistrial.

jwest

In a fit of BDS inspired revisionism, Marcy (EW) Wheeler has a post up talking about three witnesses that were not called.

One of those listed is Andrea Mitchell, who she thinks was not called by Wells because of some fear Wells had on how she would testify.

Someday, medical science will be able to explain deformities of the brain like this.

sbw

Rick: "regardless of whether it pointed towards.."

I accept the clarification and appreciate it. It better represents my view.

Ralph L.

Reading Clarice's AT post about Burglar and Lanny Davis, I wonder why Fitz let Wells pull out so much bad stuff from Russert? I thought they tried to innoculate their own witness' problems.

clarice

Cal, why is the jury allowed to consider Miller's testimony at all, you ask? Beats me. In fdl's summary of the closing remarks the parties made at the end, Fitz has some bafflegab on that which makes no sense to me unless it's a suggestion that Libby's distortions were so all pervasive that they establish motive to lie.

Pofarmer

If this is all they have, why is the jury allowed to consider Millers testimony at all?

Yep.

Miller? What about Cooper? His testimony doesn'm match his own notes, and he basically made up his "War on Wilson?" "story".

Neither one of them is the least bit credible.

clarice

Ralph:"I wonder why Fitz let Wells pull out so much bad stuff from Russert? " Libby had better researchers working on the case, I think or Fitz believed Russert's public persona.

Ralph L.

Sentence length. Unintentional? Sublimiblal?

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: BORIS

Wellstone's funeral backfired. Mondale (wasn't it?) wasn't elected to Wellstone's seat. Again. Memory problems, and all that.

And, Dan RaTHer, just by the way I am spelling his name, also had a typewriter landing on his head, "and all that."

My guess? Like in POKER, there's this "BUTTON." It moves around the table. So the person who is to deal "SEES THE BUTTON."

The BUTTON is now in front of Walton. And, he has to decide in what venue he gets to look worse. Perhaps he can ask Kofi Anan's tailor?

Sara (Squiggler

OT, I signed the settlement papers yesterday so I can get my money from my civil case. There were a couple things in this release that really gave me pause, but I held my nose and signed it just to get everything over and done with. One thing that stood out was that the release was almost exclusively about "an insurance company" protecting itself against future claims. I was unaware that I was fighting an insurance company. For instance, they are not to be held liable for any future medical claims even though they stipulate that my injuries were severe and life long and will probably cause me problems for the rest of my life. [paraphrased]

After I get and have negotiated the check, I want to write a long letter detailing each complaint and why I think that keeping these officers is a threat to the public. Would this be kosher? I feel very strongly about this because my two cops are part of a group out of a single substation who have a sealed brutality case against them from 2000 known as the "gang of seven case" and they are the same group where the cop who shot Airman Carion last year while he was unarmed and on the ground, at point blank range. Airman Carion was a young veteran just returned from duty in Iraq when he ran into one of these guys. In all three cases the supervising sargent is the same and he is a real piece of work from my own first hand experience. Very nasty, a liar, and everything we have grown to despise about the "blue wall" and "circling the wagons" to protect their own. Also extremely foul-mouthed including calling my 90 year old mother a c**ksucking bitch too whacked [2 strokes] to be believable.

The release prevents me from talking about the settlement amount but says nothing about keeping quiet about the facts of the case itself.

Rick Ballard

SBW,

May I use "pseudojournalists" at will? I haven't seen it before and it fits like a fine Corinthian leather glove.

CAL

Pofarmer,

I am not talking about credible, which I agree Cooper isn't. Libby is at least charged with something related to Cooper.

Since prosecution forgot to ask Miller about her part of the indictment iirc, Walton had no choice but to throw it out. That means there is nothing in the indictment at all about Miller.

I have a horrible feeling Walton had another of his 'well-it-wouldn't-be-fair-to-the-prosecution' moments, when he decided to not exclude her testimony.

Pofarmer

I have a horrible feeling Walton had another of his 'well-it-wouldn't-be-fair-to-the-prosecution' moments, when he decided to not exclude her testimony.

He seems to have had quite a few of those. Do you wonder if it has anything to do with Fitz's status as a "special special prosecutor"? He seems to have been given some pretty big breaks.

I'm also a little incredulous about the reversal on allowing Mitchell to testify.

The way reporters around this case have been handled, stinks.

clarice

Sara, it is expected that your settlement covers all medical claims ever. Your lawyer should have made that clear to you.

As to what you can say about the perps and to whom, ask your lawyer. Maybe a DOJ investigation is in order if there are now three pending cases. An d your mayor/city council who supervise these guys along with the local paper.

Barney Frank

Sara,

--The release prevents me from talking about the settlement amount but says nothing about keeping quiet about the facts of the case itself.--

Then I'd say you still have your first amendment rights to say whatever you please.
However and this a large however, I would run anything I wrote past my attorney first. Generally it is best to couch anything you say in terms of your personal opinion. It varies by state but a personal opinion is generally not considered slander or libel. And your attorney, I imagine, would probably advise you to leave names out as well as any references which might lead to identifying individual people even without their names. The one thing you don't want to do is spend all your settlement defending against a phony defamation suit, especially if you're moving.
Don't write a letter without your lawyer reviewing it. If you get any facts wrong and you have accused someone of base motives or behaviors you can spend a lot of money proving you are innocent and in a defamtion case, I believe (corret me if I'm wrong, legal eagles) the burden of proof is generally on the person being accused of defaming another.


Jane

Sara,

One of the reasons I stopped taking cases like yours was because the current system we have does everything it can to keep people from getting over things. No one says "I'm sorry" (on the advice of their lawyers) and everyone treats everyone else like a criminal.

A few years ago I was misdiagnosed with a terminal illness. It took years to find out I didn't have it, and when I did lots of people asked me why I didn't sue the doc - (who was an unmitigated a-hole. Aside from the idea of suing a doc for not dying, which is absurd, all I could think was the last thing I want lugging around in my life for the next 10 years is this doctor.

So you have been lugging around these bad cops for God knows how long. They hurt you. Then they added insult to injury. Now is the time to stop letting them hurt you. Now is the time to get your money and enjoy spending every single dime of it. That is the way to win. Every second you spend on this matter going forward, every letter you write, every reference you make, is a loss to you and to your life. You may has well be lugging these guys around in your pocket. And I bet they are heavy.

A release is boilerplate for the most part. However, the most important part is usually the non-disclosure part. So if I were you, I'd stay mum on the whole thing, and move on.

Sara (Squiggler

Thanks Clarice, yes I understood the no claims ever part, I just thought I was dealing with the county and the sheriff's department and must have missed that it was actually their insurance company. I was advised against going to the press back six years ago for what at the time seemed sane reasons, but now they wouldn't be in jeopardy from me as to a law suit, so maybe they will listen to me as a concerned citizen with very valid concerns.

I'll probably end up saying the heck with it. I've lived with this horror for so long, I really don't want it to keep trashing up my life.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CHARLIE (IN COLORADO)

Charlie, you got it! My reference to Adam Smith and the invisible hand.

Here, I thought people would be looking for input from an ADAM SMITH comment. In LIVE time! HA! (That's actually thrilling to me.)

And, yes, even though MARK O says that GREENSPAN would be nuts to direct traffic away from his wife; because it wouldn't be covered by "lawyer-client" privilege. It really does show up by the way "this globe" rotates. As the "invisible hand" turns not just "mere markets."

Lesley

A 30+ day supply of underwear?

When my boys were in the junior high, they considered that to be one pair.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Possible career outcomes ahead for Russert?

He could land at Dan RaTHer's table.

Or he could end up with Sandy Berg(l)er.

Unlike others here, I think having a reputation that Sandy Berger has; as a great tag line on "tailor" jokes; it's besides the point if Russert is "saved" on TV.

Like his show, MTP, fewer people watch these days than you think. He's just a "big cheese,' in a little nothing berger.

owl

Been thinking about what I observed of Andrea (2000-05). Started as more even handed (CIA/State/Bush) but would label it pro-State. Now I think it was pro Collin Powell. She seemed to progess at about the same rate as what I was hearing from Powell. I suspect Andrea not only talked to Armitage but also Powell. Fitz made darn sure he never came close to her.

Sara (Squiggler

Thanks everyone. Powerful because I really do want to forget this whole thing. In fact, I am happy to report that since two days after the settlement, I stopped having the nightly nightmares. Winning was truly justification and validation in and of itself.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: SARA (squiggler)

I like your "repetitive closing suggestion" to Wells. As a matter of fact, I like it so much, I thought of The California Raisins, song.

"YOU HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE"

And, whom-ever is closing for Libby. He can wear a PURPLE TIE. (With raisins tossed on it.)

clarice

Jane, that's wonderful advice. My sister had a sound medical malpractice case--a very serious one --she didn't press on the perfectly sound psychological basis you outlined.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

So what, Centracal?

Olberman-doberman is gets a contract renewal.

Maybe, he's the "abeyance factor" should Russert tank? And, then he can inherit Meet The Depressed. Why not? He's got good looks. What other qualitifations are there?

On the other hand? You think Katie Couric was a good move for C-BS? If so, how so?

Pofarmer

Been thinking about what I observed of Andrea (2000-05). Started as more even handed (CIA/State/Bush) but would label it pro-State. Now I think it was pro Collin Powell. She seemed to progess at about the same rate as what I was hearing from Powell. I suspect Andrea not only talked to Armitage but also Powell. Fitz made darn sure he never came close to her.

It certainly explains her "everyone knew" statement. But, how do you get around her backpeddaling? Apparently, it's ok to lie to the court to protect sources.

Jane

Jane, that's wonderful advice.

Thank you. Of all the things I've learned in the last 20 years practicing law, probably the most important is that litigation prolongs rather than diminishes the agony. It's often necessary, but it is a lousy way to "win".

Ralph L.

Jane, I was picked as a juror for a case where a woman sued for mistakenly being told she had breast cancer. Error corrected in two weeks. IIRC, they settled, but since I'd just had a melanoma cut off, I was able to talk myself off the jury.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I don't know about you, Sara, but I think lots of people, including Libby, will have "deals" to either TALK on the money-making Speaker Circuit. Or they'll write books about this case for future reference.

If you write fairly you show BOTH SIDES having a point of view. And, if you write well, and don't mind taking up your time doing so, you can write a FICTIONAL SCRIPT. Because there are gonna be growing markets in what is now the wilderness of Internet "Compatibilities."

Ah. Just another reminder. When Lincoln got very angry, he'd write letters to the party that offended him. But he didn't send them. Just slipped them into his desk drawer.

"That" desk draw was in the White House. So the letters, after Lincoln was shot, were saved. Opened to public inspection. In other words? Retrieved.

Curiosity does that to people. When something happens to a person that translates into being grossly unfair.

sbw

Rick: May I use "pseudojournalists" at will? I haven't seen it before and it fits like a fine Corinthian leather glove.

Feel free. Ricardo Montalban would approve.

Just this morning I was considering writing a blog entry on the subject of journalist-pundits and pseudo-journalists.

There is the possibility they might be offended at being referred to as hyphenated journalists. Over time several different labels have come into vogue to describe them, only to fall out of style.

Because it is their habit to offer their version of play-by-play, and then, without changing hats, to offer color commentary, perhaps they might prefer to be called "journalists of color."

Syl

jwest

In a fit of BDS inspired revisionism, Marcy (EW) Wheeler has a post up talking about three witnesses that were not called.

One of those listed is Andrea Mitchell, who she thinks was not called by Wells because of some fear Wells had on how she would testify.

It's the testimony they like (and their own innuendo) because the other stuff (like why Andrea didn't testify) is only part of

Tedious Legal Arguments

(actual title of the post that covers this)

Selective attention couple with bias is the definition of BDS sufferers.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: PO FARMER

Above, you seem to single out the "Walton Moment," where he changed course on allowing, and then not allowing in, the Mitchell re-cross.

Well, ya know what?

Walton also gets V-8 moments.

Dunno if that comes with or without the other contents of the Bloody Mary; but isn't it possible he can get a number of V-8 moments at home; while he waits for Tuesday?

And, in response to Sara (the squiggler)'s pain at having to endure years of waiting for justice (in her civil case) ... isn't it possible that she's not the only one who would lose sleep? Isn't it possible enough of those who got "crossed" by Wells ... have stuff to worry about?

In other words, it's like going into a super-duper restaurant in your best party clothes. (And, from yesterday's link to Monty Python's "Creosote" episode.) In comes the fat guy "and sings?" Or tosses up in the bucket?

Not exactly what you'd want splattering your clothes!

jwest

Javani,

The aluminum tubes controversy would be a good issue to jump into.

Eriposte at the Left Coaster has volumes of raw data, quotes and reports – all misinterpreted and twisted in a tinfoil hat narrative. The basics are there waiting for logic to be applied.


Sara (Squiggler

Jane, you are so right. The agony is definitely prolonged when there is a case pending. You just cannot allow yourself to forget or get over any little detail. It consumes you and not in a healthy way. My Mother died before this case got to court and for her last 4 years of her life, she lived in constant fear that someone was going to take her away from me, her only child. She refused to go to sleep at night without a baseball bat under the covers. At 94, weeks before her death, my son surprised her and it scared her so, she pulled out the bat and was ready to defend herself and she started screaming, "no you are not going to hurt my little girl." It is very hard to forget those kinds of things and even typing it here makes me cry.

cathyf
One of the reasons I stopped taking cases like yours was because the current system we have does everything it can to keep people from getting over things. No one says "I'm sorry" (on the advice of their lawyers) and everyone treats everyone else like a criminal.
Unfortunately, I see the failures of the legal system are adding up to something far worse. A big part of the function of civil court is that it allows a person to get revenge for injuries without violence. This case in Chicago where a judge's husband and mom were murdered was a guy who had his face totally disfigured by medical malpractice, and then he got screwed over again when he tried to sue and his lawyer was incompetent and didn't file stuff correctly and was totally blown out of the water by the insurance company lawyers.

We talk about the golden rule and how wonderfully moral you are if you follow it. How about we talk about sheer self-interest alongside the morality lecture? How if you allow evil things to happen to people and don't lift a finger to help them, you just might do it to somebody who breaks under the strain, and comes back later with a gun. While laughing about the schmuck who got screwed and "can't do anything about it" without being punished, maybe you should take a minute to consider that the whole murder-suicide thing is impossible to punish someone for.

I read a long story about the judge whose family members were killed by the guy who went around the bend. She made a point of saying that she didn't hate him, and she felt sorry for him. Well, that's good, but how about sparing a little outrage at the legal system which ground this guy up? This is a judge, someone who works in the sausage factory. Doesn't she have a single concrete idea for how the system could be improved to better do what it is supposed to do?

clarice

sbw, I've stolen so much from Rick he's used to it ("Ambassador Munchausen" is my all time favorite theft.)

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

One thing I notice is that VISUALS are not for the blind.

And, coming out of the court house, for the left, are FEMALE BLOGGERS. ONLY FEMALE BLOGGERS. And, even then? Not black ones.

Here, someone mentioned "left wing journalists." They've got blacks on their left. So why is only Walton starring in this EPIC?

Jane

Cathy,

I don't want to get into a long harangue about that case, because my memory is bad, but as I recall the Judge's hands were tied. The guy's rememdy was to sue his lawyer, and the Judge couldn't do that for him. Even then it was a long and windy road. Lawsuits are indeed a way to channel one's anger. I just prefer a treadmill.

Ralph,

The woman traded 2 weeks if ungodly hell for 7 years of another kind of hell. (Around here it takes about that long for a med mal case to go to trial.)

I hope it was worth it. Personally, I know that life is too short!

Ralph L.

sbw, I took "pseudojournalists" to mean that they report falsely, not that they add color, or were you going for the (good) joke?

sbw

Ralph, both. They colored what they reported into fiction and the joke (Bah-dah-Boom!)

cathyf

Jane -- I know that the judge's hands were tied when it came to doing something about the case at the time. What I mean is that after the murders & suicide, there was all of this tremendous amount of publicity. The article that I read was a reporter who spent several weeks with her months after the murders. That is the point where she had the bully pulpit and could actually say something that might have resulted in some concrete legal reforms.

People get so bound up in the system that they really believe that there is nothing that they can do. There is a social contract here -- people submit themselves to the legal system in exchange for its protections, and we are delusional if we think that we can chip away those protections without having anyone decide to stop submitting. People act like this is some sort of arcane inside baseball with no consequences to the "real world." But it does matter, a lot.

Back to the Libby case, I am afraid that we are seeing a gradual but steady breakdown in the rule of law and indeed the foundations of the nation. It is frightening, and I don't really have any ideas about how to fight back. But I'm willing to entertain anybody else's ideas...

Rick Ballard

Jwest - Javani,

Attempted rebuttal of the leftist narrative (regardless of subject) is spending time precisely as Saul Alinsky dictates you should in Rules for Radicals.

A more constructive approach may be to work on the development and reinforcement of a counter narrative of truth.

The laziness of pseudojournalists in accepting the traitor Corn's first publication of Plame's mythical status is the reason this has become the tragicomedy that we are enduring today. If a single pseudojournalist of stature within the MSM had examined IIPA and then taken a close look at Harlow's disclosure to Novak, Corn's agitprop would have been exposed.

Isn't it a better use of time to search for newborn memes in the party organs and make sure that they don't become full grown tropes?

boris

the whole murder-suicide thing is impossible to punish someone for

Why the law enforcement paradigm is useless against terrorism.

steady breakdown in the rule of law and indeed the foundations of the nation

The design is different rules and new foundations. The group that complains the most about privacy rights for terrorists have no problem with higher energy prices, more taxes, invasive security measures and diminished market freedoms. Nanny totalitarianism.

Jane

Back to the Libby case, I am afraid that we are seeing a gradual but steady breakdown in the rule of law and indeed the foundations of the nation. It is frightening, and I don't really have any ideas about how to fight back.

Cathy,

I'm not sure we are seeing anything that hasn't been around since our republic began. I'm not certain of that, but I'm not convinced either. What I see the breakdown is with the press. There appears no committment to facts, no integrity in reporting, no willingness to keep one's politics out of things.

Maybe that has always been there too, but it seems like a more recent phenominum.

boris

What I see the breakdown is with the press

There has been a very significant loss of common ground between sides. Not sure it wasn't worse before the Civil War. Small comfort if true however.

Ralph L.

The irony is that all that occurred as the press increasingly touted its increasing professionalism and education. Rather have the drunken hacks from His Girl Friday. They were bought by individuals, not whole parties, and didn't pretend to be more than they were.

sbw

Not sure it wasn't worse before the Civil War.

And after.

Rick Ballard

SBW,

Do you have any idea as to how John Burns keeps the NYT editorial commissariat away from his stories? I've been trying to think of non-pseudojournalist byliners and he keeps popping to the top.

sbw

OT Rick, I can't help. FWIW, I gave up reading the NYT unless I get pointers to a specific piece. That happened after Jay Rosen fawned over Ron Suskind's NY Times Magazine piece, "Without a doubt" -- probably the official beginning of the anti-Bush reality-based attacks.

Rosen prompted my replies An article of faith and Reality-based reporting. Rosen later commented that he "wept" when he read Suskind's article. If I wept, mine were tears of frustration. This was not journalism. It was a hit piece. And a professor of journalism weeps? I'll match any j-school wannabe of this ilk any place and any time on the topic of what constitutes journalism and what does not.

Speaking of John Burns, I have a copy of his CSPAN interview broadcast this past week that I want to listen to. I hear it is very good. I'll "OT" comment after viewing it.
/OT

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame