Powered by TypePad

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

February 13, 2007


Jim E.


I never made a prediction. I asked a question. Try again, bub.

Patrick (not Sullivan)

No, AJ, don't say that. It's not over, it can't be...

What will we do with our (bosses) time?

Jim E.

The Russert tape evidence...(drumroll, please):

The defense wants to show tapes from NBC from 1998 in which Russert says that witnesses in the GJ don't have a lawyer. In cross in this case, Russert said he didn't know that you weren't allowed to have a lawyer in GJ.

What a bombshell. It's so directly on-point. Not. (At this point, the jury either believes Russert, or they don't. I find this "evidence" rather yawn-inducing.)

JM Hanes


"I'm too proud to use a dictionary so I appeal to other posters"

It's OK. You can plead the 5th here without counting the cost. In general, however, a simple "Preview is my friend" in response to nit pickers is all that politesse demands.

Rick Ballard


Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

Patrick R. Sullivan

Ha ha; Wells is going to play tapes of Russert during Clinton's legal problems saying you can't have an attorney with you in the GJ.

Prosecution is adamant he can't, because he wasn't confronted during cross examination with those tapes. Wells responds, 'Fine, I'll recall Russert and confront him with them.'


JOM & Associates = gray flannel, brief cases = boring

JOM Justice League wears capes and tights without the slightest hint of gayness.

If TM had issued capes at the outset, we would have caught Russert’s forgotten phone calls to Buffalo. How the hell are we suppose to do our jobs without the proper equipment?

Sara (Squiggler

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

Posted by: JM Hanes | February 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM

So Ari, even with immunity, is guilty of perjury? Is this justice?

Other Tom

Let's see if I can Shusterize today's developments: "Cheney Declines to Testify."

Sound about right?

bio mom

Wells wants to bring Russert back in tomorrow afternoon.


No Eckenrode.

Posted by: clarice | February 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Happy endings breaking out all over the freakin' place--end to embarrassment for the FBI!


Not even close Other Tom. It should be "Cheney Takes FIfth Amendment In Refusing To Testify"

Carol Herman


Since hypotheticals, as yet, have not been judged illegal;

Can you imagine if the jury acquits? The media will be hot to do interviews. Then, imagine that on closer inspection, the jurors say they didn't believe Russert?

Well, it sure would be rich in opportunities for Sat. Nite Live openers. They could even invite Guiliani to guest host that night.

They've already toasted Chris Matthews, ya know? The "AIN'T SHE GREAT" spoof. He was interviewing Hillary.

I see no end in sight for this road show.


Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

"The cast" isn't going anywhere from what I can tell. We are in it to win it.

"Timmeh" is about to have a very bad nite.

Sara (Squiggler

JOM & Associates = gray flannel, brief cases = boring

Grey flannel pajamas, doncha know nuttin'?


Fitz appointment was intended to explain what a criminal conspiracy investigator is for; bad CIA agents. Plame and Wilson immediately responded with a law suit. Treason trials can still go on whether or not Fitz is a violation of the constitution.

Other appointments, like USAID, were upsetting because the money appeared to go from the Intelligence Committe directly to agencies like Mercy Corps and friends of the intelligence committee, regardless if she is a CIA agent or not, that's wrong.

1)Me. I was investigating a murder and she popped up. (2) No, five year law (3) Joe was being threatened by CIA.

Ari? Boring and constantly stuck in hostels.


Jane, What did Imus say today?

hit and run

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilt"


And finally:

Wells Final point, admissions to the effect that "we further advise you that reporter Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory has not been interviewed or subpoenaed."

Walton And you want??? They refused to be interviewed by govt. Neither side had a chance to be interviewed.

Wells I want it in to show that during investigation, the govt already had been told in GJ that Ari Fleischer had told Gregory. They had that info in hand. Gregory, had refused to be interviewed.

Walton What inference are you asking to be drawn?

Wells, govt admitted into record DOJ guidelines concerning limitations on govt how they couldn't do everything. They'v talked about search for truth.

Walton You're suggesting that the fact that they didn't subpoena these witnesses. As I understand the rule, you've got to show that the witnesses are peculiarly available to one side.

Wells It has to do with GJ investigation.

Walton. You move to dismiss the GJ, you don't present the govt's failure to present evidence to GJ.

Wells govt said we were going to get all the facts. They admitted them so they could say they complied.

Walton They only presented it WRT the witnesses they called.

Wells My opening was a response to their evidence.

Walton "Whatever face you want to put on that pig" you're arguing that they jury should assign something negative. What are you going to argue to the GJ, if these people were called, they would provide something that is different from what it said.

Wells Govt shouldn't be allowed to say they were involved in search for truth. They want to put the integrity of their search for the truth in play, I should be permitted to say to the jury that they didn't ask Russert about Gregory. They asked Gregory to be interviewed, he refused, they let it go. Let's say you had a case where DC Police decided not to engage in most basic fingerprint analysis of gun. If they weren't going to pound their chest, I don't have a problem with it.

Walton David Gregory was allegedly told that in Africa. That wouldn't tell us anything. How would that have in some way potentially exonerated Libby?

Fitz What we said is that we charged him with obstruction of justice. Wells keeps arguing that obstruction is improper. Do we want to start trying Dickerson for saying he wasn't leaked. Defense doesn't want to call Dickerson. They're trying to not call witnesses themselves and fault the govt.

Walton Did you say something about purity.

Fitz What I do recall saying is that GJ had to get to the truth and that by lying Libby obstructed justice. We didn't say "we turned over every rock, every gift shop on the island." Wells said guy in the cowboy hat asked the hard questions. Now we're going to get into the question of what did the defense do.

Wells What Fitz said. An important but tough job. Had to figure out a lot. Who were those officals who knew, how did they learn it, what did they understand about it? To make it simple they had to find the truth.

Walton How would that relate to what Fitz was saying. Libby is not charged with the leak. He's charged with allegedly lying. Even if I let this out, it would relate to a matter he's not charged with. This information in no way relates to whether your client lied to the FBI.

Wells, if he's going to say that they tried really hard. They didn't press Russert, they didn't interview Mitchell.

Walton It was merely background info. I don't see that as adding anything to the weight of the govt's case. Regardless of why they were doing the investigation. Did he talk to FBI. Did he lie.

Wells, I only offer it to defend my client and again start to pound their chest. They want to say Mr Libby lied and we're going to show you have they've given proof beyond a reasonable doubt. THey can't bootstrap it of creating a picture of this great investigation.

Walton. I don't see how this any bearing on whether your client lied.

Walton I didn't perceive them as saying they were going to say they were the best investigation.

Fitz Zeidenberg is doing the summation, I'll do rebuttal. Wells said the only way they'd lose this is if they didn't follow their oath. We said justice was instructed.

Walton Zeidenberg–do you intend to comment on quality of investigation?

Z I wouldn't think my vouching for the investigation would be beneficial in any way.

F Do I take it that Wells won't be commenting on it. THe only problem I had is if Mr Wells said the only way they lose. I have a problem if Wells gets up and does his schtick.

Walton To suggest that if gregory was called he would be able to prove some basis. He is equally available to both sides. There cannot be a suggestion taht if he was called he would refute govt case.

Fitz Jeffress is going to introduce three articles. We don't object. THe only other one is the CPD issue.

Jeffress. We didn't prove anything about where she worked. For them to come back to try to corroborate Grenier in rebuttal.

Fitz we worked out with defense, redacting exhibit with stamp treat as secret, declassified. Second exhibit that has a stamp. Cline has proposed an instruction, want to do switch of exhibits. Govt has exhibit in evidence, Wilson op-ed annotated. We had it marked, we'd like to offer it as 402. [Hey we finally learn what 402 is]

Cline It's going to be off all exhibits of that note.

Walton: get any changes to instructions. Difference in unanimity.


As a casual observer, this appears to be one of the weakest cases ever prosecuted. It doesn't do much to instill confidence in our so-called justice system. And Fitzgerald may never have to account for his misconduct. Really a sad day in American jurisprudence.

Other Tom

I think we can infer that, although others might be induced to yawn about this evidence, Fitzgerald is not.

My preference is that Russert be recalled and confronted. Perhaps some of his loose-lipped buncombe on the Imus show will find its way into evidence.

I am far more pleased at this instant than Patrick Fitzgerald is, which in and of itself is an unequivocal good.

hit and run

Do you think we'll see the cast assembled once more before the scrofulously ""Honorable"" Conyers?

How does one go about getting Wells involved on behalf of the administration?


Just one accurate news outlet would have sunk this whole ship of journalistic misery long ago.

Exactly JJ. Yes, FOX was as bad as the others because they were clueless. Matthew's bunch are criminal.

Clarice....can't help you out about Hardball because I have moved on. The new kid on the block is ABC. Bad crap over there in strange sources.

Jim E.

Cecil Turner: "Jewish lawyer, Republican, memory ('overload') defense related to go-to-war decision. DC Jury."

Jewish lawyer??? DC jury. Code words here? Nah, of course not.

Just so folks know (I've seen lots of vague comments about the "DC jury" in the past few weeks), two-thirds of the citizens in DC are minority. Yet most of Libby's jury is white. One of the jurors (white guy, I think) used to work for Bob Woodward, for goodness sakes. If anything, this is probably *not* a typical DC jury.

In any case, I'm not exactly clear on what's meant by "DC Jury" and "Jewish lawyer," because I just know Cecil isn't implying anti-Antisemitism on the basis of, well, nothing.


So Ari, even with immunity, is guilty of perjury? Is this justice?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 13, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Nope. A global deal is getting cut, messy stuff is being swept under the carpet and Fritz is odd man out. NBC lying is out there for all to see who want to see it. Justice may be if Libby writes a book, but he's an insider, too.


Jim E.:

"What a bombshell. It's so directly on-point. Not. (At this point, the jury either believes Russert, or they don't. I find this "evidence" rather yawn-inducing.)"

I agree, it was long ago.

However, for a lawyer, practicing or not, to say he didn't know about this GJ procedure is fairly amazing.

JM Hanes

Jim E.

Do you believe Russert had no idea that you don't get to take your lawyer with you when you testify for the grand jury? Just curious.


Recall Russert? Talk about a dream scenario for everyone on this site!



Two threads back the Imus stuff is discussed. Basically he said he thought Mitchell, Russert and Gregory were going to jail.

Then I think he changed his mind.

Carol Herman


I think you're wrong about Jews.

Remember, the only question Reagan asked his surgeon (after he had been shot), was "are you a republican?"

Jews do well in lots of communities. Where people need doctors or lawyers. That's how Jews make good livings among the goyim. Even if they have to start their own country clubs just to play golf.

Don't confuse the elites with the peons. Pee-ons are desperate. And, both groups want good lawyers and good doctors.

Need anymore evidence? The Kennedy kid in trouble for rape; got off with Roy Black. So I rest my case, in this department.

Carol Herman



You know what? We are kibbitzing.

We are kibbitzing around which just proves today's news from the Libby trial ain't bad.

So far? My only question is how far can NBC reach to keep Walton in a camp that doesn't destroy Russert?


Thanks Jane...and that's so typical of Don.



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

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

Do we get to wear tight fitting uniforms?

How about overalls?


However, for a lawyer, practicing or not, to say he didn't know about this GJ procedure is fairly amazing.

Lawyer, smawyer...most people know that from watching television.


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

Another argument for global warming bites the dust.


Wells: Mr. Russert, can witnesses bring lawyers to a GJ?


LMAO... Russert is such a clown....


EU is more fun.

Dan S

"Z I wouldn't think my vouching for the investigation would be beneficial in any way."

Hey, a smart prosecutor!


Jane, gotta love that discussion about the quality of the investigation! Betcha the jury has a few thoughts on that.

But the reality is that the jury WANTS to hear from the defendant. They will all think to themselves, if it was me and I was innocent, I would demand to testify.
Well, there is another perspective, which is that in the closing argument the defense works to convince the jury that the defendant is the victim of an out-of-control prosecutor who shirked his responsibility to investigate the leak, and then tried to blame his own failures on Libby. Then point out what the jury spent 8 hours listening to -- Libby the calm, helpful witness trying to give the investigators useful information, information which, if they had followed up on it, they might have discovered that Plame was leaked to a good chunk of the DC press corps in May and June of 2003. Ya' know, if the investigators had actually listened to Libby rather than sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting LIAR LIAR WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. Point out that according to Fitzgerald, it's obstruction of justice when you tell the truth but they don't believe you -- perhaps the logic is that if you lie and say, "I don't remember anything" then you won't distract the investigators from trying to punish you for trying to be helpful.

This has the advantage of being a particularly resonant story with residents of DC -- every single person who lives in DC knows multiple up close and personal stories of people ground up in the government meat grinder of incompetence, pissing matches, blame-ducking and petty office politics. Bring these to mind, and the jurors think, "geez, I don't blame him for keeping his mouth shut -- that Fitzgerald creep would just twist it all around anyway, embarrassing himself and us at the same time!"


Fitz and Rus could be the wonder twins.


"DC Jury" = democrats That is all that is meant by DC jury.

Rick Ballard

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilt"

No way, H & R.

"Cheney Absence Implicit Admission of Guilty, Guilty, Guilty"

Add spittle as needed.

Jim E.

Regarding Russert and the GJ:

I do have a very hard time believing that he, whether or not he's a lawyer (which he is), would not know that basic GJ rule. A few episodes of Law and Order would get anyone up to speed. I just don't see it as helpful in undercutting his alleged credibility, however.

In fact, I find it only a little less laughable than when Wells made a point of insinuating that Russert's publicity photo somehow indicated his glee at Scooter's impending indictment. To bring up the 1998 broadcast tapes might hurt Wells' credibility more than Russert's. Just seems desperate to me.


Rus in tights and a cape. Fantastic.

hit and run

Rick - "Cheney Ordered the Code Red!"


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

Yes, its a little thing called the Constitution, where in this country, as opposed to inside you pea brain, you are PRESUMED innocent and have to be PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no burden of proof on the individual under our system, he doesn't have to PROVE anything. You can't find him guilty just because he didn't PROVE anything.

In addition, it was a RECENT decision, because if you haven't been following along, it was a RECENT prosecution, like just happened last week. So once the GFitz put on a pitiful case, what exactly is Libby supposed to defend himself against?

The testimony of Grenier? I have a feeling I might have said something?

Or the FBI agents that admits Libby said one thing and their notes say the opposite.

How do you defend against a prosecution that is kicking sand in our faces?


Russ in tights ....

Maybe we'll see if he really is Big Russ. LOL


I just don't see it as helpful in undercutting his alleged credibility, however.

Oh I do. That little faux pas stood out like a sore thumb. It wasn't credible. It sounded like a bold face lie. And I bet it did to most of the jurors too.

If I was rooting for the otherside, that statement alone would really nettle me.

And if we are really lucky, Imus will talk about it tomorrow!

Jim E.

Sue wrote: "'DC Jury' = democrats That is all that is meant by DC jury."

Er, no. The majority of Jewish voters are Democrats. Cecil thinks a "DC jury" will have problems with a "Jewish lawyer." Since you've chosen to speak for Cecil, square that one for me.


H&R: I strenuously object.


The context of the article suggests that the surprise has more to do with the lame strategy of interviewing random females and asking if they were raped by the defendant.

Surprise! They found reporters Libby didn't leak to.

The defense rests.

Terry Corman

I just read through many of the comments here, and I don't understand something. It seems to me that the government has to prove intent in this case. All of us have faulty memories, the jury will take this into it's concideration.

It scarcely matters that the government can show if Mr. Libby said something different than Mr. Russert, can the government prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Libby intended to deceive?

Why are you not discussing this, in all of your writings on the subject?

Carol Herman



Seems he only wants Libby tried for "lying to the FIB." Where's even the record for that?

Eckenrode hasn't got them.

And, the idiots at the FIB, with badges, seem to wear them to shield themselves from being lying scoundrels.

Waltoon is worse than Ito.

This case contains more back stabbers than a a Kremlin office party.

No surprise about Waltoon. Most blacks are very anti-semitic.


ARC:Brian already found it at FDL and posted it on the previous thread-

For the few wondering about the Well's tapes on this thread-

Wells. Second piece of evidence relates also to benefits received by Russert and would be form of impeachment testimony. Being able to testify in setting where lawyer was present. On cross, in attempt to explore Russert's understanding if he went before GJ, to my complete shock, Russert said he had no knowledge.

Walton There's no evidence he's ever done criminal law.

Wells. I'm going to show you three video tapes where it's clear he's aware of it. "So you understand that normal procedure, they're not permitted to have lawyers in room." I've given govt transcripts of three different appearances where he acknowledges that witnesses before GJ don't have their lawyer. Discussing GJ testimony of Clinton. [why am I not surprised we were going to Clinton?] He askes why he doesn't go before GJ.Resisting a subpoena are words he can understand better. Clinton is saying "can we not testify on video" rather than having to march before GJ without his lawyers. In other portions of the interview, why she won't answer that question. She says it's one of may questions because it's before a GJ w/o a lawyer. These go right to the heart of a benefit.

So it is just contradicting the testimony where Wells asked him earlier about GJ testimony.

So at the very least it challenges Russert's ability to remember correctly.

hit and run

H&R: I strenuously object.



This has probably been mentioned on an earlier thread, but can somebody tell me the racial composition of the Libby jury? Thanks.


Since you've chosen to speak for Cecil, square that one for me.

We have been discussing a DC jury since they picked it and the 9 to 1 factor. It is a public board, Mr. E. I'll speak when I want to, but I think you knew that already. You have selective memory, Mr. E. Rick said more than DC jury and Jewish lawyer. In fact he didn't even put them together..."Jewish lawyer, Republican, memory ('overload') defense related to go-to-war decision. DC Jury." I stand by what I said, DC jury = democrats.



We discuss it constantly. The problem is we aren't discussing it now, and there are a kajillon posts.

OT Joe Kennedy is on Neil Cavuto defending his dealings with Hugo Chavez. My gawd, he has turned into his uncle. He looks and sounds just like him.

Carol Herman


Even though Ted Wells is coming close to resting; it seems the LAST WORD that will be his, in front of the jury, will deal with RUSSERT.

As to the justice system itself, Americans should wear black crepe. The system is dead. There are no truth seekers left in the judiciary.

Cecil Turner

In any case, I'm not exactly clear on what's meant by "DC Jury" and "Jewish lawyer," because I just know Cecil isn't implying anti-Antisemitism on the basis of, well, nothing.

Oh please. Now you're gonna tell me there's no racism in the US, either? Of course there's anti-semitism. As for "DC Jury," I meant precisely what Walton meant when he said:

I could be wrong about tactics but I mean I don't know if that's a battle you want to fight before a District of Columbia jury.


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

Posted by: Anonymous Liberal | February 13, 2007 at 11:33 AM

What are you gonna say, AL, if Libby is not convicted?

"I sat through this crap for three years and all I got was a tin foil hat?"

Just teasing you.


I should testify for Libby. I don't even know who said what and I just read it. ::grin:: Cecil instead of Rick!


Lesley! Lesley can design the JOM uniforms.



You hit the nail on the head. A careful reading of Libby's FBI statements and GJ testimony reveals he did come clean that he learned about Wilson's wife from the VEEP in June.

The rest of his testimony was an explanation of why he didn't think he was the source of the leaks to reporters.

It turns out that such testimony was basically true and he had no intent to deceive or reason to do so.


If Libby was a serial child rapist being tried for his 5th offense, the judge would be bending over backwards to admit any and all evidence and testimony the defense wanted to throw in.

Every objection, every request and every ruling would be done in a light most favorable to the defense.

I guess the rules change when the crime is republicanism.

ARC: Brian

Jane found it.. I just highlighted it. And of course it all came from FDL.


Terry, it has been discussed many many times.

Tom Bowler

The thing that I wanted to see come out of this trial is for Joe Wilson to be thoroughly and publicly discredited. It's no surprise that we're hearing the press say, oh well, there never was a crime after all. If Libby somehow is convicted Wilson's story remains intact. If he's acquited the press will just drop that part of the story. Either way, Democratic presidential campaigns will go forward as planned - on the premise that the administration lied, the war is unjust and a mistake. We must withdraw, and we must cease fighting until we're attacked again and we can prove in a court of law who attacked us.

Wilson's lame story is the basis for the "Bush lied" claim and it depended on Russert and the rest of MSM to give it legs, which they happily did. And while Joe's story has been discredited, that fact will not get past the MSM filter and through to the general public.

The "Bush lied " issue is the one on which Democratic presidential candidates are going to campaign for the next two years.

So my vote is for the Just One Minute Justice League is to stay on the Joe Wilson case. Especially if he and Val are idiotic enough to try to proceed with it in civil court.

Do let me know if I can help. Maybe you can make me an honorary member.

Rick Ballard

I wouldn't be afraid to appear before Walton as a defendant or a plaintiff. He has shown the requisite indifferent impartiality that I look for in a judge.


They don't let the truth anywhere near a courthouse for fear that it will corrupt the process.

JM Hanes

Jim E.

"I just don't see it as helpful in undercutting his alleged credibility, however."

Totally aside from the argument TeamLibby can make at closing about how the prosecution handled this case, the credibility factor is pretty simple.

What's the logical next question when you find out someone lied? As in: Russert lied. Why? Most of the time, the Defense lawyer doesn't even have to ask or answer that question. The jurors will do it for him.

When you speculate about jury reaction, you don't actually have the illusion that you might have passed muster in voir dire, do you?


God, I hope Cheney lives to write a book about his experience in this admin - or Lynne and Cheney together. That would be fascinating. Wouldn't you love to look at the machinations of the Dems from Cheney's perspective.


There is no hurdle to membership here Tom. You're in.


"I guess the rules change when the crime is (bone-headed)republicanism."

Hear! Hear!


I would like to say to all the people on this site which have given insight into the legal process during this trial thank you very much.

I'm a layman and not experienced with legal procedures. I knew better than to try to get honest reporting from the MSM but I really didn't know where to get it. I saw a link to this site last week on FR and have been lurking here since.

You guys are great and the back and forth on the discussions have been just exactly what I had been looking for. I read where someone has tried to get this into the Libary of Congress, I can't imagine a better record than this. I surely hope that happens.

And just to throw it out there another trail which is nothing but a railroad job is the Tom Delay trail coming up in Texas.

Thanks to you very nice people


Sara (Squiggler

So at the very least it challenges Russert's ability to remember correctly.

In the last few years of my 32 year marriage, there were several times when my husband showed memory lapses. Always, these lapses seemed to be on things I had told him that he denied. Some of this material was part of our divorce pleadings. His word against mine.

Then one day, my attorney called me and said she had just received a call from my husband's attorney asking her to ask me, "if I thought my husband might be in the early stages of Alzheimers." This was his attorney asking if he was really competent to be negotiating financial settlement issues.

I pooh poohed the notion. Then about six months ago, now 4 years after the divorce was final, I received word that my now ex had retired from a job paying a six figure income three years before actual retirement. It didn't make sense to me because he is really a dedicated work-a-holic. A few weeks later, he told my son that he took early retirement because his memory was getting really shaky.

I took my husband's bad memory as gamesmanship to get out of certain divorce issues, but his attorney saw something that I was too close to the forest to see. Now several years later, it appears she was right.

These players in this case are all about the same age my husband was when I was doubting he really had no memory of certain issues being discussed, so how many of them are really in the early states of old age senility or worse?


What are you gonna say if Libby is not convicted?

"I sat through this crap for three years and all I got was a tin foil hat?"


Tom Bowler

Thanks Jane! You're a sweetheart! Do I get a badge?

Jim E.

In terms of the JOM Justice League and high-profile cases, perhaps you'd start with Nancy Grace, a prosecutor who has never seen a defendant who isn't guilty, and Bill O'Reilly, who thinks the ACLU is anti-American.

Proponents of civil liberties and due process, such as all of you here, could do worse than shining a light on Grace and O'Reilly.


Do I get a badge?

You didn't hear? It's your job to design, manufacture and distribute them.


Do I get a badge?

You didn't hear? It's your job to design, manufacture and distribute them.


and Bill O'Reilly, who thinks the ACLU is anti-American.

Not only are they anti-American they are in it for publicity and money. Don't even try to send an ACLU attorney a case that won't bring them major publicity or lots of donated money.


By all means, shine that light on Grace and O'Reilly....but if you let it touch the ACLU..lots of little creepy crawlers wearing anti-American signs are coming out.

JM Hanes

Jim E

"Proponents of civil liberties and due process, such as all of you here, could do worse than shining a light on Grace and O'Reilly."

I thought your guys were working on that 24/7. What's the matter? You coming up empty?


As long as we’re shining lights, how about Matthews, Schuster and the rest of the MSM?


From Kevin Drum:

WHY ONLY LIBBY?....On Monday the defense in the Scooter Libby trial called a string of reporters to the stand and asked them if Libby had ever told them about Valerie Plame's identity. They all said no. Over at National Review, Byron York (or, rather, Byron York's headline writer), asks a question:

If There Was a Conspiracy to Out Plame, How Come Libby Didn't Tell Woodward? Or Novak? Or Pincus, Or...?

Answer: Who cares? Libby's not on trial for outing Plame's identity.

So here's a more pointed question. As near as I can tell, everyone else that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald talked to during the course of his investigation told him the truth. That includes Richard Armitage, who originally leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak. It also appears to include Karl Rove (though only barely), Bob Woodward, Ari Fleischer, Novak himself, and dozens of others. So here's my question: If everyone else told the truth, why did Libby lie? Repeatedly. Under oath. What was different about the vice president's office that out of the entire mountain of people Fitzgerald interviewed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff was the only one who felt he had to lie?


"The Judge questions Libby out of the presence of the jury who confirms he does not want to testify. The decision whether or not to testify is one of the few decisions in a trial that is up to the defendant, not the lawyer."

LOL... That's your hero TM. Too afraid to testify in his own defense. I wonder why... Hmmm


Sara (Squiggler |

That is a sad story.

I am in the "age range" of all the players in this fiasco and I sometimes feel I am "losing" my memory.


Gee, ferris wheel, that's a reasonably doubtful predicate.


Sara (Squiggler |

That is a sad story.

I am in the "age range" of all the players in this fiasco and I sometimes feel I am "losing" my memory.


.....Too afraid to testify in his own defense......

This says quite a bit about your handle/signature. Quite a bit.

You're not a lawyer are you?


What did Libby lie about, repeatedly, under oath sferris?

Dan S

"You're not a lawyer are you?

Posted by: Chuck"

No, he's a troll.

JM Hanes


"Answer: Who cares? Libby's not on trial for outing Plame's identity."

Alas, so fickle & so cruel! You used to care, back when this case was young and sexy.


What did Libby lie about, repeatedly, under oath sferris?


I don't mean to disrupt the thread with off-topic question, but earlier in the thread Sue mentioned the ACLU and donations, and I was wondering; with regard to Joe and Valerie Wilson, what happens to all of those donations in their 'defense' fund if they drop their civil suit?

bio mom

The defense must think it is winning with the jury. No need to put up Libby. Libby takes his lawyer's advice here.

JM Hanes


A good question is almost never off topic!

michael scanlon

If the jury agrees that Libby is a liar and convicts him, how will his defense team then feel about his punking out and not taking the stand to face Paddy Fitz head –on?

Terry Corman

I didn't express myself correctly with my first post. So I ask, during this trial, how and where did the government try prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the intent to deceive?

Beyond just showing that they could find witnesses to say something different from Mr. Libby's recollection of events, how did they prove intent? Does Mr. Russert's testimony carry such an emormous weight, that it implies intent on it's own?

The comments to this entry are closed.