Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Libby Thread - Friday Afternoon [OK, Thursday] | Main | Libby - Friday Pre-Game Show »

February 15, 2007

Comments

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. But Mark O asked that I post my question here, since he thinks the Other Tom might now the answer. And, he can't access this site right now.

The question is:
IT'S ILLEGAL FOR JUDGES TO ASK OTHERS FOR OPINIONS?

Background: Mark O said that it would be illegal for the judge to ask the opinion of other jurists. He thought it was "cause for appeal."

I had asked him IF SO, was this the first trigger Wells got that he had an APPEAL to present "higher up"?

Semanticleo

"video of Libby being waterboarded"

Yes, that would cap his appeal as one
of the 'little guys' and would go far in marketing sympathy for his victimhood.

clarice

Heh and Double heh--You do realize that post will bring a lot of moonbats here.

Carol Herman

The Civil War was a real knock out and drag out for this country.

This time? All I see is an UNcivil War. Long in its duration. But stuff that the mainstream just shrugs off.

Here? I'm prepared to lose battles. I know from reading Sun Tsu, to Patton, that set backs on the battlefields are to be expected.

In the first place, unless you get people to TOTALLY SURRENDER, you should keep on fighting.

And, some losses only add to the People's will to keep on fighting.

This is just a small court room. Are there larger issues? Seems Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit is on to them, too.

clarice

I can't believe MarkO said that. I know of no law nor good sense that prevents a judge from consulting with his colleagues about the application of the law.

TexasToast

Honestly, I think Fitz proved his case - particularly on the Russert counts - but one never knows what a jury will do.

I guess we will know soon enough.

Cecil Turner

. . . let me offer this as Fitzgerald's Biggest Blunder: Playing eight hours of Libby tapes from his grand jury testimony.

If it works, of course, it was genius. Not sure who looks worse here, the prosecutor's overzealous questioning or Libby's rambling circumlocutions. Could go either way, but to most audiences, I'd agree with you.

Honestly, I think Fitz proved his case - particularly on the Russert counts - but one never knows what a jury will do.

Really? Beyond a reasonable doubt, the only explanation for that is a lie? Couldn't possibly be mixing up another conversation (with, say, Novak)? And he'd make that premeditated lie because he expected Russert to cover for him? I'm not sure that I'd buy that argument if the standard was "preponderance" . . . but I certainly wouldn't here. The jury's predilection is Fitz's only hope, and on that point we agree: one never knows.

centralcal

Busy at work, can't keep current with comments, so apologize if this is old news. Hot Air has a blog post about recent polling, and the lead sentences are:

"Fox News just dropped a bag full of goodies. 41% of Dems want the Gorebot to enter stage left? More Democrats are following the Libby trial closely than “American Idol”?"

Boy, the Dems seem to really be hoping for somethin', don't they? ha.

clarice

TM--NRO also is angry that you weren't mentioned in the NYT piece:
http://media.nationalreview.com/

Martin

"Couldn't possibly be mixing up another conversation (with, say, Novak)?"

Considering Novak was called as a defense witness, I'd hope that Wells et al. didn't just forget to bring this out.

If we're going on record with predictions, count me as guilty-Libby never forgot about Plame. Reasonable doubt does not equate to 'innocent if there plausible alternatives'-they still have to be reasonable. Libby forgetting-ain't. OTOH I probably know more background than the jury. On the bare facts at trial, even I might vote to acquit.

Libby was clearly covering for Cheney. If you see Murray Waas' new article that the NSA leaks were short circuited when top officials refused to subpoena journalists, it's easier to see why he lie about Russert, never dreaming they'd be subpoeaning journalists.

And if Waas is anywhere close to the truth, it's inexcusable that they failed to so subpoena CNN because everything was pointing to Shelby and/or the Executive branch. Those were real leaks, no matter what you think of Plame.

I won't anti-gloat for a conviction, though.

Other Tom

I suppose honor demands that I express my agreement with Martin's assessment on the earlier thread: I take the juror's comment to mean nothing more than "we were unanimous [almost] on these T-shirts, but now we're about to start deliberating." In my experience it is extremely rare for jurors to begin deliberating prematurely, and when it happens generally some juror steps forward to complain to the judge.

Agree with Martin? What the hell, folks, we're way past the Bloodys and well into the afternoon Martinis out here now--it's damn near three o'clock.

feedup

I would think that the 8 hours will turn into one main of the reasons Libby will get off - if you put yourself in his shoes. That would have happened a generation ago - today, who knows?

clarice

After Fitz took over the DoJ wuits were in no position to short circuit him on anything.

The Waas piece is idiotic--

Martin

OtherTom- you know what? I have lost all power to throw any nasty barbs your way. I think b/c you're the only one to roll with them!

Well let me give it the old college try. You red-nosed ....nah forget it. I'm raising my glass of bourbon and water in your general direction. Here's to ya!

clarice

**Suits***

SunnyDay

Brilliant!!

I always thought there was something strange about Ari.

Barney Frank

My question is, what is Libby's answer to Fitz's argument about motive is?

It is true as Cecil and others have pointed out that divulging classified info to reporters rather than unauthorized government officials or after someone else has already leaked classiifed info is not a defense aginst leaking info.
But Fitz's reasoning is somewhat different in that he claims Libby's alleged lies would get him off the hook for intent as far as IIPA or diviulging classified info are concerned, because if he thought he was hearing it from reporters then he could not have known it was improper to be discussing it; hence the underlined, inflammatory articles.
What is Libby's argument to the jury for what appear to be convenient memory lapses.

If I were on the jury I wouldn't think Fitz came close to establing beyond reasonable doubt but the seeming pattern of memory failure on Libby's part would be the highest hurdle Libby would have to jump, I would think, if only because it's the only semi-plausible motive the prosecution has.

Other Tom

Martin and I just cross-posted. Concerning his recent one on this thread, I'm uncertain what he means about Wells et al. forgetting to bring out the possibility of Libby's confusing Novak for Russert. The place to do that is in argument--all the evidence necessary for the argument is in.

While it may be clear to Martin, or even Murray Waas, that Libby was covering for Cheney, I'm afraid that will have to go down with assorted other moonbat lore, going back to the grassy knoll. They really, REALLY know it's true--and by God, they've got some reporters on their side!--but they just couldn't quite prove it (or even allege it) in a court of law. Not even when they had Elliott Ness with a Harvard Law degree doing the heavy lifting for them.

Ranger

Considering Novak was called as a defense witness, I'd hope that Wells et al. didn't just forget to bring this out.

Posted by: Martin | February 15, 2007 at 02:51 PM

Then I guess you missed the part of the testimony where the defense asked Novak if he mentioned Plame when he talked to Libby during the week of the 7th of July. Novak said he didn't remember mentioning it, but he might have.

And Martin, at this point even Don Imus thinks Russert was lying to the court when he said he didn't know about Plame on July 10th. And if Russert knew about Plame, then he could have said something about it to Libby. It could be Russert who is lying to protect someone rather than Libby. And that is called resonable doubt.

SunnyDay

But Barney, it sounds like you're saying Libby has to prove something, even though Fitz didn't prove anything.

Ralph L.

Martin, I don't believe the government new of the NSA leak until 04, so how could Libby think they wouldn't be subpoenaed, esp. when Bush required everyone waive confidentiality? It's certainly a scandal that no one's been indicted for the NSA leak, but perhaps you don't agree.

Patton

I just read about something that should have caused a mistrial that I was unaware of and that is the St. Valentines Day Shirt Massacre.

What was this jury thinking? They were clearing mugging for the press and acting
not as serious jurors. I would be very worried about the herd mentality where they all agreed (but one) to wear the shirts.

They could have simply passed the judge a note with the same sentiments, but they wanted to have the publicity and take advantage of the press coverage.

Whoever convinced them to do that, what else could they convice them to do?

That does not bode well for a honest, deliberative decision.

bad

Ari included the detail about a July 7 Lunch with Libby to bait Fitzgerald into using him as a witness. Then Ari made up this other crazy stuff to discredit his own testimony and Fitzgerald's hard work! It was a set-up!

I think one could expand that conspiracy to include Tim Russert as well.

Patton

I've served on a couple of juries and I can't imagine anyone ever suggesting such a stunt.

Cecil Turner

Considering Novak was called as a defense witness, I'd hope that Wells et al. didn't just forget to bring this out.

Man, that would be dumb, eh? But no, don't think they did:

RN I believe he returned call on July 9.

W Describe your recollection of your conversation.

RN I was trying to find out more information about Wilson's mission to Niger and VP's connection. Most memorable about call, I asked Libby if he might be helpful to me in establishing timeline in 16 words. When they came in, who proposed it, sort of a consecutive account that I could put in column. I interpreted him as saying he could be helpful.

W In context of talking to Libby did Wilson's wife come up.

RN I don't remember exactly, I might have raised that question, I got no help, and no confirmation on that issue. The reason I'm fuzzy is that I talk to a lot of people in govt an politics everyday and a lot of them are not very helpful and I discard unhelpful conversations in my memory bank.

Javani

"Although Sunday afternoon seems a bit early for speculating"

Tom, um, today is Monday.

I didn't think you the "lost weekend" type, but I hope you enjoyed it. Cheers!

Syl

Tom

I don't compliment your writing (or your thinking) often enough. I don't want to be thought of as a suck up or anything, I guess. But this was yet another in a series of posts that show your clever, fair, honest, devious, logical mind at work--with turns of phrases to die for.

I used to call you the Kaus of the Right. It didn't take long before that morphed into 'Kaus aspires to be the Tom Maguire of the Left'.

Other Tom

Patton, I don't see it as grounds for a mistrial, but it is absolutely bizarred. Usually you see that kind of behavior after much longer trials than this--and only after the verdict has been rendered. Very strange, and I don't know which way it cuts, if either...

clarice

Novak says he might have;might have;
Woodward says he might have;
Russert couldn't be positive he didn't raise it;
Cooper said he raised it:

Wherever might Libby have got the notion that reporters were calling asing about Wilson's wife?

Ralph L.

Clarice, you're going sublimilible again. Asing Wilson's wife.

hit and run

Martin:
I'm raising my glass of bourbon and water in your general direction.

I'm pouring my first glass of bourbon now.

To Martin!

clarice

***asKing****

Other Tom

"bizarre." (Happy Hour.)

Jane

And if Waas is anywhere close to the truth

Wouldn't that be cause for a national holiday?

TexasToast

Cecil

I really don't see "mixed up" Libby as plausable/reasonable. There appears to have been an organized campaign of pushback on something that appeared to have mucho
import to the OVP. I don't buy the busy (but whacky! :)) chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States with selective memory problems.

ISTM that a Libby who believed that "Russert will never testify" makes a lot more sense.

Russert's said (paraphrased) "it never happened" - it doesn't seem plausable that he would have forgotten such a conversation either. Once he was forced to testify, other than Tom's white lie slippery slope argument, why would Russert lie? Once forced to testify, it would be in his interest not to cross a "source" - and he is under oath.

So, no, as Martin so sucinctly put it, Libby forgettin' - ain't.

Rick Ballard

If I were in the jury room with only knowledge gleaned through the trial I might bring up the contrast between the Armitage series of declarative statements (on tape) to a reporter concerning "Wilson's wife" and the 8 hours of gj testimony.

Armitrage (and Novak) coughed up the fact that Armitage was Novak's source and Armitage was also a[n] (unused) source to Woodward. How was the investigation materially obstructed when it had the primary facts in hand prior to the FBI questioning of Libby?

If fear of prosecution was Libby's motive, why did Armitage disclose the fact that he was Novak's source?

Dwilkers

"...after eight hours they were probably reeling..."

Its not just that. Having spent time on a few juries I'll tell you this would have been experienced as wasted time and overbearing.

Make your point and move on please, I need to return to my life.

I sat on a federal civil jury once where a lawyer hammered on a single point with a witness for an entire afternoon. The entire jury was irritated, sighing, squirming and sick of it by the end, and that was just from like 1pm to 4pm.

Barney Frank

--But Barney, it sounds like you're saying Libby has to prove something, even though Fitz didn't prove anything.--

No, but a defense attorney ordinarily should not count on a jury being so dismissive of a prosecution as to ignore the prosecution's strongest points.
The defense doesn't have the burden of proof but they sure should do as much unproving as they can.

Javani

My highlights of this trial.

1. Tom Cruise and Penelope!

2. Grenier's explanation for his recovered memory about telling Libby about Plame (per FDL)

"J does your memory get better with time?

G It depends.

J did you find a note?

G what improved was what I remember thinking and feeling afterwards. That only came to me afterwards. What triggered it and why, I don't know.

J And when did you forget that feeling?

G I didn't recall it.

J What triggered that feeling?

G I wish I could tell you."

Pofarmer

I realize that some here take it as gospel that Russert was telling the truth. I really do consider that the only count that might get a conviction.

But, let's think abuot Russert? Does he have motive to lie? Well, Libby saw the IIPA papers, correct? He should have known he was in no jeapardy. Russert? Maybe not so much. And, how do you explain Russerts change of testimony between the first, rather unofficial seeming, FBI interview, and his GJ testimony? I think after Eckenrode gave Russert Libby's statement, he realized at some point that the prosecution was after the administration, not after the leakers or the press. So, what's convenient to do? He didn't know if he knew something he shouldn't know, but there were only 3 people involved Mitchell(probably the main source) Gregory, and Russert. His changed memory conveniently gets his butt out of a sling, and puts Libby in the Hot seat. But, you say, "Russert would do such a thing." Folks, Russert was a Dem Flack for years before joining the press corps. And, I give you Dan Rather as exhibit A, that ones scrupples can be compromised "for the cause". Also, Russert has become unwatchable to me. It became clear around election time 04 that he clearly had a side, and an agenda, I don't put anything past Russert.

Now Libby? His story on this particular matter never changed. Why would it, if he was telling the truth? I also give as exhibit b, the fact that Fitz, and apparently the NBC lawyers fought so hard to keep Mitchell off the stand. You think the NBC lawyers would parse words and lie to keep Mitchell off the stand? They already did once to try to keep Russert at home. Nope, the whole thing stinks.

Javani

and no. 3 highlight,

Russert admitting he spilled the beans to an FBI agent without any compulsion or legal consultation.

no. 4,

Russert saying he didn't know GJ witnesses could not appear with attorneys,

no. 5,

Russert's affidavit,

and no. 6,

Novak revealing the green room bragadaccio of Joe Wilson (now that explains the "asshole" comment from Novak)

Pofarmer

There appears to have been an organized campaign of pushback on something that appeared to have mucho
import to the OVP

Yes, there was pushback on the facts, you nit.

Who has testified that there was ANY pushback on the wife angle, besides Fleischer, at State.?

Cecil Turner

There appears to have been an organized campaign of pushback on something that appeared to have mucho import to the OVP.

Also plenty of evidence on what that campaign entailed . . . and "Valerie Plame" is conspicuously absent. (Also nonsensical, if you accept the obvious: they didn't know she was covert--probably because she wasn't.)

I don't buy the busy (but whacky! :)) chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States with selective memory problems.

Well, if the prosecution witnesses had better memories, they sure didn't show it.

ISTM that a Libby who believed that "Russert will never testify" makes a lot more sense.

Really. Bad bet, then. (Did Tim even wait for the waiver?)

Russert's said (paraphrased) "it never happened" - it doesn't seem plausable that he would have forgotten such a conversation either.

Funny, then, that he couldn't rule it out the first time . . . and that the notes of that conversation went conveniently missing. But I tend to believe he's right, and Libby is confusing that conversation with another.

MarkO

On the issue of a judge wandering around in the chambers and getting advice from other judges.

I asked Carol H. to post the question because I was occupied culling my unicorns.

The question for me is a new one, but I wondered about it for this reason: it seems to me that were the judge to have an opinion based on something outside the record or his own courtroom staff’s assistance, he should have to disclose the conversation and what he was told. What, to make an absurd example, if he called Ted Turner and asked him what he thought he should do. Slide down the slope with me and tell me where we end.

I seem to recall in the extremely dark and dank recesses of my mind that this sort of thing, undisclosed, becomes a denial of due process. I have never heard a judge say, in substance and effect (great little legal chant) “I was lounging in the back asking Judge Doofus how he would rule on these objections and he suggested that I sustain them. That’s what I’m going to do.”

Other than that, what’s the point of consulting. It’s not the Supremes.

As I have lamented here, there are many odd rules of law and I can simply be ignorant of this one. Help me out here. Come on. I’m shrinking.

Syl

My favorite parts of the trial (Javani's Grenier one too, Penelope not so much):

Wells telling Russert: You lied to a federal judge!

and nobody objected.

Syl

Oh, and expletives deleted from the Armitage/Woodward tape!

I love a good expletive/deleted whenever (almost) I encounter it!

Ralph L.

Pofarmer, and very poor pushback it was.

Other Tom

Dwilkers, what you said resonates with me. Remember the DeLorean trial, where they seemed to play that video of the defendant accepting the cocaine about every five minutes. After voting to acquit, the jury let it be known that once would have been enough, and they thought they were being talked down to. I had a similar experience where jurors after the trial told me that my opponent annoyed them absolutely to distraction with his repetitiveness and slowness.

Hoist one for me, Martin--cheers!

hit and run

Penelope? Did someone say Penelope?

Weird. I wasn't even online. Was feeding the kids.

And then I heard her name.

Barney Frank

clarice,

I think your 3:10 was directed to my question.
And what you said is correct but still doesn't get at Fitz's argument.
His argument is that Libby in the GJ claimed to have forgotten about any government conversations at the time, but did claim to have had conversations with reporters. He's alleging a pattern of convenient memory lapses which is why I still beieve Fleischer to be a bigger problem that Russert.

It seems a pretty weak argument to send someone to prison but I think if Cline were to drive a stake through it in closing Libby would be home free.

Javani

Syl writes,

"Oh, and expletives deleted from the Armitage/Woodward tape!"

With great shame I hang my head and confess a temporary memory loss about the tape - how otherwise would that not be near the top of my list!

I also liked Armitage's "everyone knows, everyone knows"

and Woodward's guizzical "That's weird"

clarice

MarkO it's a very common practice in the federal district court here and I expect thru/out the country.

Javani

quizzical, q, quizzical

kaz

TT:"Russert's said (paraphrased) "it never happened" - it doesn't seem plausable that he would have forgotten such a conversation either."

Just like Russert didn't forget calling the reporter to fuss at him?

Just like Russert didn't forget you don't get to take your lawyer with you to a grand jury?

Just askin'

clarice

BF--given the testimony of the other govt witnesses why shouldn't Cline drive a truck thru that argument--He should start humming "feelings" when he gets to Grenier's testimony, for example--and "memories" as he describes Grossman's.

Ralph L.

O. Tom, the first Rodney King jury said they became desensitized to the beating.

Gary Maxwell

I've served on a couple of juries and I can't imagine anyone ever suggesting such a stunt.

Were the cases as frivolous as this one was? Perhaps it was the jury way of pointing out what a clown show of a prosecution they had to live through.

G'daddy

Why is Cline rather than Wells doing the closing for the defense?

Other Tom

MarkO and Clarice, it's a question I've wondered about a great deal, but have never asked any of the judges I know. I've always assumed that on stuff like evidentiary rulings they do, but not on more substantive things. (Not that an evidentiary ruling can't be of huge importance, as it was here.) By the way, I believe this guy made repeated erroneous rulings on hearsay--I think he has real trouble with discerning what it is and what it isn't.

Martin

Cecil Turner-ok, I don't really think you can conclude that Novak told Libby about Plame based on Plame-but even if you can or do-you're still back to square one.

Libby already knew about Plame - but now it was Novak and not Russert who told him what other reporters were saying. Ok Libby "misattributed" his source.

It still can't get him in front of Judy Miller on June 23rd, and Libby's "[I was shocked by Novak] because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning" still doesn't pass the laugh test.

hit and run

Uh oh.

Fair warning. Tonight's Bunco night.

No, not for me. For Mrs. hit and run.

That means

I. Am. Not. Supervised.

MarkO

Clarice,

Maybe no judge I've seen has admitted to it. I supoose the argument would be that the case is before the DC Federal Court which includes all judges. And Ted Turner.

Sincere thanks for taking your time to inform all of us during the trial. And, great thanks for reporting on the trial without snarkiness (or if you did I agreed.)

Ralph L.

Kate, GHWB actually waited til Christmas 92 (after the election) before pardoning Weinberger et al.

MarkO

"supoose" is just an affectation.

boris

alleging a pattern of convenient memory lapses

Not because he remembers not knowing. He remembers being surprised the 2nd week in July and bases his reconstruction of what came before accordingly. He may have no memory of learning in June but people often know details they don't remember acquiring. If someone had asked Libby on June 22 "Where does Joe Wilson's wife work?" he might have been able to answer that question.

Barney Frank

BF--given the testimony of the other govt witnesses why shouldn't Cline drive a truck thru that argument--

I think he can and he will.
I'm just trying to put myself in place of a juror. As a juror if the defense drove a truck through it and then backed up and ran over it that would extinguish any chance the prosecution had for me.
To me Russert's and Fleischer's testimony is rendered moot if that thin reed of motive Fitz has erected is snapped.

Syl

Martin

because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning" still doesn't pass the laugh test.

Our problem, yours and ours, is that we've been pouring over the indictment for well over a year, we've been following all the pre-trial stuff, we know details, timing, participants, inside out and backwards.

The above phrase you quote, to the jury, is just one statement out of 8 hours of testimony. It won't have the same impact on the jury as it had on us.

Ralph L.

H&R, You're married to a gamester? Shocking.

kate

Ralph L. You're right. And I also remember the Independent Counsel came out with an indictment the week before the election.

But Bush is not running again, so I think he should just do it.

kate

I was always afraid the Fitz was planning to indict on the eve of the election. I gave him a lot of credit for not doing so.

Now I think he couldn't because he was fighting the journalists.

I still give him credit for no dangerous leaks on the eve of the election. Must have killed Eckenrode.

Ralph L.

Walsh should have been thoroughly slapped for that, trying to influence an election from sheer pique.

Barney Frank

boris,

I know what you said at 3:49 makes sense, but if Cline uses that first sentence on the jury, Libby may be indicted for murdering his lawyer.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I really don't see "mixed up" Libby as plausable/reasonable.'

Well let's see, of all the witnesses who testified having 'discussed' Valerie with Libby, Judy Miller would be the one with the most mentions. 'Wife works in bureau(?)', WINPAC, and July 12th phone call. I make that less than 30 seconds of Val-gal conversation.

Others total probably less than 60 seconds combined--a few seconds each. So, let's be generous, and say Scooter spent two minutes of his work days from the end of May 2003 through July 12th. That's roughly 6-1/2 weeks @ 70 hours per week = about 450 hours.

Equal to about 27,000 minutes of work time. So, about 00.007% of Scooter's work days were spent on Mrs. Joseph Wilson, leaving him free to devote the rest (99+%?) to concentrating on stopping terrorists from launching anthrax or other biological-nuclear attacks on us the people.

Yeah, I can see how it would be impossible for Scooter to forget about Joe Wilson's wife.

bad

Eckenrode and Fitz drank the same koolaid.

boris

did not recall that I had ever known

And yet Russert was led to making a near identical claim on the stand about an incident of significant importance in his professional dealings.

cathyf
I realize that some here take it as gospel that Russert was telling the truth. I really do consider that the only count that might get a conviction.

But, let's think abuot Russert? Does he have motive to lie?

I think that you are falling into the BDS trap to even frame the question of Russert as telling the truth vs. lying.

You see, in BDS world, everything revolves around justifying Clinton's lies, because they just can't get beyond the notion that they supported someone who lied. The primary tool here has been to expand the definition of "lie" to cover all sorts of things -- disagreements, innocent mistakes, making arbitrary close calls -- so that they simultaneously "get back at" the people who criticized Clinton for lying, and trivialize Clinton's crimes.

(I'll digress here to point out that as far as I can tell, Bill Clinton is embarrassed and kinda creeped out by this behavior. His position is that he screwed up, and got caught, and all he wants to do is move on.)

So, anyway, as to Russert's testimony. His statement, under oath, was that he has no memory of telling Libby any such thing. This could be a lie (if he does have such a memory) or it could be the truth (if he doesn't have such a memory), but either way it's still possible that the conversation happened. Then there is the statement that it would have been impossible. This is not a statement of fact at all, but analysis. Analysis can be stupid, ill-informed and/or illogical, but it can't be a lie.

The main premise of advanced BDS is that everything that they don't like about McChimpyburtin is a "lie" because they want the word "lie" to mean everything.

And nothing.

Don't fall in the trap of letting them re-define the word.

hit and run

Ralph:
H&R, You're married to a gamester? Shocking.

Where do you think I get my booze money?

Jane

Maybe no judge I've seen has admitted to it.

I've heard Judges say that before, and I know for a fact they do it. What on earth do you think they do on the first month of the job? Judges are pols for the most part, appointed here and elected there, but none of that is an indication of judicial brilliance. Frankly I find that practice heartening. At least they care enough to consult.

I preside over a lot of arbitrations, where essentially I act as a Judge. It's not nearly as hard, and constrained but it absolutely involves a completely different way of thinking than if you are a party. And that takes practice.

Martin

Syl-I can't say I've listened to the whole 8 hours, but I assume that nowhere in the 8 hours does Libby say "I was just following orders."

Well, good (in a weird way) for him.
Cheney has every attribute of a dog, except loyalty. Libby's got the loyalty, and, together, they make a hell of a dog.

Nevertheless it's clear Libby was following his boss' orders. And the only way to get through 8 hours of questioning and keep Cheney out of it was, imho, to commit perjury.

boris

if Cline uses that first sentence on the jury, Libby may be indicted for murdering his lawyer

One hopes Cline can construct a more coherent argument than mine.

Can't Cline speak for Libby? Give the version of events that Libby has been able to "remember" more accurately with access to notes and discovery.

Christopher Fotos

My favorite dialogue is Wells crossing Russert about his spotty memory of radio and TV appearances:

W: (shows news stories) Does this refresh your memory, is it fair to say you were aware of stories saying Libby would have been indicted?

T: I may well have been.

W: Given your personal involvement… you have no recollection of that day?

T: No, I said I remember news conf and going on air with Brian Williams

W: Don't recall Today show?

T: No.

W: Don't recall Imus show?

T: No.

Wells asks to approach the judge. Sidebar. It's 2:02.

W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"?

T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember.

W: Do you have a bad memory?

T: No.

Jane

I'm just trying to put myself in place of a juror. As a juror if the defense drove a truck through it and then backed up and ran over it that would extinguish any chance the prosecution had for me.

Barney,

I feel confident that if the jury walked in the door with no political prejudices the verdict would be swift and favorable. But it is hard for me to envision someone who believes that the President lied us into war, suddenly getting shocked enough at Tim Russert that he is going to re-evaluate his whole value system. The best we can hope is that the jury decides that the prosecutor didn't prove his case, and they went after the wrong guy.

Of course a lot of libs are harboring the impression that more indictments are to come, and they assume that Armitage (who worked for the admin, and therefore is also bad) and Rove will follow Libby to the slammer.

I don't see how you break that loggerjam.

Ralph L.

Kate, that's true, but Bush wasn't like Clinton trying to drag things out past the election. IMO Fitz should have examined the IIPA and Plame's status and charged Armitage if it applied and ended it there.

boris

the only way to get through 8 hours of questioning and keep Cheney out of it was, imho, to commit perjury

Your lack of imagination is not exactly evidence of anything. Why not just say "Gee I don't remember"?

Jane

Martin,

What's your problem with Cheney?

Martin

Boris, I thought about that heavily. My only conclusion is that Libby really is not all that sharp.

As supporting evidence, I'd offer the record of the Bush administration.

Syl

Martin

Nevertheless it's clear Libby was following his boss' orders. And the only way to get through 8 hours of questioning and keep Cheney out of it was, imho, to commit perjury.

A true conspiracy there. No way to disprove it. I mean if cheney had taken the stand and denied any innuendo fitz threw in his face, you simply would have said 'well, of course, Cheney is lying'.

Take Jeff, please. He believes what you do and claims the fact that the leak came from somewhere else only shows how incompetent Cheney was in getting her outed.

LOL

kate

Martin, it is the job of a Chief of Staff to look out for the interest of his boss and, in this case, the OVP. That is what a CofS does, although in Libby's case, he seemed to be wearing many hats. The Vice President was being blind sided by Wilson and Libby needed to find out what was going on. T

Wilson's attempt to discredit the office of the Vice President needed to be countered. This is the job of a CoS. I don't understand the dog talk.

Martin

Jane-just insert your favorite "moonbat" problem with Cheney, I'm sure I'm on board.

boris

I thought about that heavily.

Perhaps your thinking lacks gravitas.

Jane

Jane-just insert your favorite "moonbat" problem with Cheney, I'm sure I'm on board.

Barney,

This is the reason I don't trust the jury.

Cecil Turner

It still can't get him in front of Judy Miller on June 23rd . . .

Using Judy's "note driven" memory to convict someone is what doesn't pass the laugh test. Even if the VF or other inconsistent entries (WINPAC, Bureau, Wilson's phone #) were explained. And there's always Woodward.

And we still haven't had to decant the "innocent mistake" theory (misremembering it three months on) . . .

Nevertheless it's clear Libby was following his boss' orders.

Ah, the "he's eeeeevil" argument. Well, that settles that then.

Martin

Syl-you're not allowed to make any presumptions from a defendant not testifying. So I'll leave Libby alone.

But if you don't take anything from the fact Cheney never showed up, well...at the very least, you have to go with the fact that mock juries/focus groups rated him poorly.

Otherwise for Cheney not to at least appear as a character witness certainly leaves a bad taste.

Martin

Mr. Turner-you don't have to keep spinning out alternatives. I know where you stand. I just don't think any of them are reasonable.

Forget Miller. It's undisputed that Cheney told Libby on June 12. It doesn't pass the laugh test that he forgot that.

Ralph L.

Martin, I think Cheney was a feint by Wells.

Rick Ballard

"This is the reason I don't trust the jury."

It's the reason that I believe that the Team Libby appellate issue log is longer than Ulysses. Reading through today's proceedings it appears that Fitz will argue fear of having broken an unnamed and undefined statute as being the predominant motive. Using the newspaper articles as best evidence of Libby's "state of mind, of course.

Martin

I'll throw this out to the room. Since learning Wilson's wife was CIA-have you ever forgotten it? Just for a second?

And do you think that fact bears more relevance to you than it did to Libby at the time?

Barney Frank

Jane,

I'm afraid that for Martin, pete, etal, what is really required to deal with Cheney is not a prosecutor but an exorcist.

jerry

I think Libby will lose this because he was so involved with getting Wilson info anywhere he could around DC, spreading Wilson info everywhere he could around DC, and then pretending he'd never heard of the Wilson's until Russert mentioned it.

All the prosecution witnesses supporting this view, and Fitz's cross examination triumph showing Scooter taking two hours during yet another of his very busy weeks to chat over coffee with Miller about Niger and Wilson made this point perfectly -- Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten about the Wilsons.

hit and run

Barney:
Jane,

I'm afraid that for Martin, pete, etal, what is really required to deal with Cheney is not a prosecutor but an exorcist.

Or Sigmund Freud.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame