I apologize for the blackout - I have been having a mix of Typepad and ISP problems.
However, here is a new thread. Finally.
The NY Times had a front-pager on the firedoglake site. so congrats to them. Clarice Feldman of The American Thinker was also mentioned, so we are nearly famous.
Arianna Huffington and Jeralyn Merritt were not mentioned, so I was in excellent company. And it is remotely possible that I am not on the Times's Christmas card list because of my Wake Up Calls to Neil Lewis, which has become a regular feature.
Or perhaps my post-trial lapse back into well-deserved obscurity has begaun a few days early.
I was wondering if the Sandy Burger case would have any impact on Libby's sentence if he is convicted. One must admit the contrast between how the two were treated is stark and both by "Bush's" DOJ.
Some here thought the prosecutor and judge here may be lenient at sentencing.
Posted by: kate | February 15, 2007 at 05:17 PM
bad:
You are half-right it will be Guiliani vs. Obama or Edwards.
Posted by: maryrose | February 15, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Sue, I have no idea..I think he said NPR/
If it is where we can listen live, I would love to do so. If you find out, please post it!
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Hillary will get the nomination because she will remove all obstacles in her way by fair means or foul.
Posted by: bad | February 15, 2007 at 05:18 PM
The Addington thing is hard to to explain away if we assume Libby could only have been asking about Plame. But what if he was asking about "covert agents" WRT Joe himself? This would be in character with Libby's fussiness WRT getting the NIE declassed.
Posted by: drifter | February 15, 2007 at 05:18 PM
Maryrose, I said no more posts, but yours deserves a response. I'm just tired of pulling the knife out of my back. Public humiliation by Rick with no apology, being told to get off the blog because I happen to think that the alleged victim in the Duke case deserves to be heard in her own words and not the words of 3rd parties with their own agenda, and now, when trying to show how wall to wall news coverage influences legal proceedings the same as Libby is facing, I'm told to shut up and go away.
I have great admiration for several posters here, but I don't bow down to anybody's alter and if pointing out wrong-headedness and/or pointing out similarities that some anointed one doesn't have an interest in makes me sound defensive, so be it. The snark on this blog when you aren't one of a very small clique can be cut with a knife.
I'm not a troll. I attempt to ask good questions and I attempt to give my impressions. I have participated here on a daily basis for close to two years and I do not believe I deserve to be dismissed as if I'm a drive by. But as I said, so be it.
I am arrogant enough to believe it will be JOM's loss more than my loss. I'm sure there are lots who don't agree, but that is the way it is. I wouldn't tell them to take a hike.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 05:20 PM
drifter--I believe TM is wrong on Addington and that there was a clarification (sue posted it from FDL) that was made to the jury to the effect that Libby said only to Addington something about the CIA but nothing about Plame or her employment there. Indeed, his only written note on what Cheney told him says "wife works in counter proliferation" which could be in a number of Department's.
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 05:23 PM
kate:
Good point about the comparison with Sandy Berger's sentence. I don't believe Libby will be found guilty. I think if by some strange scenario that happens he will be pardoned immediately.
Martha stewart made money on her deal and did erase a conversation... Libby has done nothing wrong.
Posted by: maryrose | February 15, 2007 at 05:23 PM
VNJAGvet:
That was my experience as a juror. Not used to deductive reasoning, some people would latch onto an unimportant detail, especially an unexplained one. They could be difficult to dislodge, too.
Which service?
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 05:26 PM
My gawd. Fitzgerald is slick. He argues against inference and in the next breath argues for inference. I thought the judge was going to buy it for a minute.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2007 at 05:27 PM
I am arrogant enough to believe it will be JOM's loss more than my loss. I'm sure there are lots who don't agree, but that is the way it is. I wouldn't tell them to take a hike.
Sara, you either take it when people disagree with you, or you don't. It's your choice: row some skin, or don't.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 15, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Well, I guess the call in interview is off..I haven't heard a word and it's minutes to showtime..
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 05:28 PM
sara:
Anytime we lose a good voice or opinion-everyone loses. Some of my best friends are liberal and kind of on the Left. We can still talk. When I first started blogging here people thought I was a troll. At some point reality set in and now we can learn from each other. Much support has been shown to you and I would like to focus on the good times. We can agree to disagree and we will like some posters more than others. H&R gets my vote for being the funniest on a consistent basis.I do agree with those who promote -Just say no to Nicole.
Posted by: maryrose | February 15, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Old Dad and the rest of the fogies
As I have said before Righties hurl insults when they are wrong whereas Lefties hurl them when they are correct. It's a tell.
Posted by: pete | February 15, 2007 at 05:33 PM
The curse of Al Gore--just as the NEA is filling empty little heads w/ "inconvenient Truth", it turns out to be an "incovenient Fib"
"Newswise — A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”(more)
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527313
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 05:33 PM
Sara
stick around
Posted by: bad | February 15, 2007 at 05:33 PM
G'Daddy, I stand corrected, not you. I was going to use Libby's line but it's becoming trite. Political appointees really do serve at the pleasure of the President. And it was stinky of him to do that, but maybe he hoped to give them grounds for appeal.
VNJAGvet:
In my experience as a juror, people unused to deductive reasoning will latch onto an unimportant detail, esp. one that isn't fully explained, or even a gap in the story.
And they are difficult to dislodge.
What service were you in?
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 05:34 PM
Has the Defense submitted any documentation from the White House that certain documents were DeClassified? I see that Fitz has submitted documentation that VPW was a covert agent. Just when was it permissible to disclose that?
Posted by: Jim | February 15, 2007 at 05:35 PM
This is OT, but I wanted to catch up on some news and turned on Fox News. It was horrible....
First Anna Nicole Smith; then exclusive pics of Smith kissing some dude;
then pictures with ribbons of some Air Force woman who posed for Playboy or something.
I finally had to turn to CNN to get some real news.
Posted by: kate | February 15, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Are Gore and Kerry really one guy? Like Diana Ross and Michael Jackson?
Posted by: bad | February 15, 2007 at 05:38 PM
SoCal NPR radio at 5:30 eastern sounds like Patt Morrison (LA Times lib; http://www.scpr.org/programs/pattmorrison/index.shtml). Or it might have been the "good folks" at "Progressive" Pacifica Radio KPFK (not NPR but they get plenty of public funding).
Posted by: MikeH | February 15, 2007 at 05:38 PM
--whereas Lefties hurl them when .....--
"them" is extraneous.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 15, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Sara (SQ):
I thought you just meant for today.
I know you have gone through a lot in the past few months. Don't let one day's thread get to you. As one of my old trial lawyer buddies said to me after a particularly bad day, sometimes you're the dog, sometimes you're the tree.
It ain't personal, it's blogging.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 15, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Kate, you have to wait for Brit. No one else comes close.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 05:41 PM
I certainly never told anyone to shut up or to leave.
I am just sick of hearing about ANS. I don't want to discuss it here. I don't care about any legal point. I am sick of hearing about ANS.
That's it. It's simple. It's not personal. I'm not fighting with anyone. I am just sick and tired of hearing about ANS.
Posted by: SunnyDay | February 15, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Charley, I'm not the one with the thin skin being disagreed with. I can hold my own in an argument over opinion and have no problem doing so. Being blind sided by someone I'm agreeing with has been going on for months. I've sucked it up and ignored it over and over. I'm tired of it. I don't say to anyone that I find the constant chatter about the swamp dwellers as abysmally boring, nor do I care one whit about the Plame/Wilson civil suit, but I don't complain. I try to always state my biases and/or position before voicing an opinion, and I have relatively few biases. I'm pro-military and I actively support victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and rape. I'm a hard line Libertarian Hawk with a heavy dose of pragmatism thrown in. I would give up my life to defend your constitutional rights, if it came to that. If that is thin skinned then again so be it.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 05:43 PM
then pictures with ribbons of some Air Force woman who posed for Playboy
I am getting this mental image of some very strategically placed ribbons and not much else. Is that what you meant?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 05:44 PM
I don't think Hillary wants to stand next to Obama's cleanliness either.
I don't think Ms Clinton wants to stand against the strength and willpower of Obama's wife. IMO, even though Hil has better experience in dirty backstabbing, if a 'fight' is in public, I imagine Obama's wife would win.
Posted by: Syl | February 15, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Well Sunnyday, then you won't be making any comments about the media in the Libby case, right? What hypocrisy.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 05:46 PM
I actively support victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and rape.
Whether it occurred or not does not seem to be a criteria though.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Esni
You are one sick puppy and no doubt a really really wrong Rightie to be hurling those kinds of insults. You make me hurl!
Posted by: pete | February 15, 2007 at 05:47 PM
No G. Maxwell, Fox uses red Miss America-style ribbons for censorship. Sorry to burst your ...bubble.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 05:47 PM
Syl, I've seen one photo of Madama Obama to date and no information. Direct us to the inside skinny.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 05:51 PM
Read that Waas/Eckenrode article. Boy is that Eckenrode a self-promoting, delusional, partisan hack.
"I could have saved the world, but those mean Administration officials blha, blah, blah."
Posted by: kate | February 15, 2007 at 05:51 PM
oh brudder....
...we need a diversion!
How about Fitzgerald?
I don't want to leave false impression that the only way you violate is to break IIPA.
????
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Mikeh It's been shifted to tomorrow. When I have the details I'll post them.
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 05:53 PM
maryrose:
H&R gets my vote for being the funniest on a consistent basis
If nominated I shall run to Mexico. If elected I shall fight extradition
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Just an old, retired businessman and full time grandfather to a bunch of grandkids who call me G'daddy.
LOL...I thought you might be a rapper
Posted by: windansea | February 15, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Oh it matters Gary, but we don't know exactly what happened and I do not take either the prosecution's or the defense's word on the facts at this point, especially when the media has chosen sides. Haven't you learned anything from the Libby case?
And if anyone here is so reading challenged they think I care about the ANS case, then I suggest you get help. I don't care about the outcome, but I do see it as the most glaring of examples of how the media is setting the agenda and after all there is a helpless baby in the mix and it is all about getting the half billion dollar payoff. Sleazy lawyers, sleazy press.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Ralph
There was an interview with Obama and wife, of which I've only seen short excerpts. I have no link. I think she is a force to be reckoned with.
Posted by: Syl | February 15, 2007 at 06:00 PM
RalphL:
Thanks for the inside skinny. Suspicions confirmed. There is no control over this, of course, I have learned through that experience to try to keep it simple.
I was on active duty in the Army from 1966-1970, and in RVN from May 1967-May 1968.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 15, 2007 at 06:01 PM
If Libby is convicted I don't think he will be pardoned - immediately. Maybe at the end of the term but not immediately. At any rate he would probably be free pending appeal and I feel pretty confident that he would win on appeal. It's simply a matter of how much more hell he has to go thru to pay for having served this administration.
I'm ready for the civil case, where at least I have a little more experience, but that motion to dismiss for failure to toll the SOL is pretty compelling. I would not be the least bit surprised if it were granted.
What's the buzz on the Judge?
Posted by: Jane | February 15, 2007 at 06:02 PM
So, how about them Chargers sacking Marty after going 14-2?
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 06:03 PM
"Mikeh It's been shifted to tomorrow. "
Thanks Clarice. If it is the Patt Morrison show it should be interesting. She sometimes has, for my taste, a too elevated indignancy quotient, when it comes to conservative views of things.
Posted by: MikeH | February 15, 2007 at 06:04 PM
I would think Bush could pardon immediately, take the heat for a day or two and then move on. His father did that with Weinberger and others.
But this Bush is so risk adverse, I doubt he'd do it.
Posted by: kate | February 15, 2007 at 06:05 PM
Hmmm--she'd better not start up with me--I'm no Orrin Hatch
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Risk averse, Kate?
Not if you consider his actions after 9/11.
Afghanistan and Iraq were risky even with good intelligence.
The risks in Iraq were well known. Indeed, those opposed had forecasted a much more devastating result than has been the case.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 15, 2007 at 06:17 PM
Haven't you learned anything from the Libby case?
Seems like I could ask you the very same question and it would be ten times more relevant. A runaway prosecutor with no regard for what really happened. Sound at all familiar?
I get my information from source documents not the media either. Try it sometime, you might find it refreshing.
I know the facts of the Duke case like many here know the facts of the Libby case. If possible, it is infinitely more objectionable since the charges are refuted by facts and the only evidence is the accuser who has changed her story multiple times in multiple ways. And she has a well understood motive to lie, to avoid a probation violation and possibly her children's custody.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 06:28 PM
In spite of my opinion about this case that is based on a missing crime, missing motive, missing opportunity, anything goes with this jury. I'm afraid to predict the outcome of this jury.
I also do hope that Judge Walton will agree with Libby's first pleading...that Fitz has failed to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
Posted by: lurker | February 15, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Gary, I'll take your word for your knowledge, although I'm still waiting for that email that shows me the alleged victim under oath giving her story 5 different ways. I did a search the other night and could not find it. But, it is true that I'm not very interested in a case that appears to be a bunch of rich alumni protecting their little boys. You seem to be very defensive, almost like one of the parents or defense attorneys. Why do you care so much?
I also know very well how a university and alumni will go to almost any length to protect the school's reputation and the reputation of a jock or top fraternity. The influence is brutal and unrelenting and smearing the accuser is step one. But, since I've said from the beginning that I want to see the evidence presented in court before condemning anyone, I would say I'm on the high ground and you are a flak for the boys.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Oh and Gary, in case you are another one of the reading challenged, let me reiterate that by ANYONE, I mean the alleged victim, the Lacrosse accused, the defense or the prosecution. I don't hold these boys in very high regard, but I do give them their right to as vigorous a defense as the law allows and I expect the prosecutor to prove the case against them beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not, however, believe one word coming from media sources or defense or prosecution spin. Been there, done that.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Sara
Are you one of the 88 signatories to the "listening" ad? Cuz your smarmy little comments about rich alumni and frats et cetera ad nauseum sound just like them. And they are the ones right now most guilty of a rush to judgement. Like the comparison? You are living their dream, so better get used to it.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 06:51 PM
Oh and one last thing, you can most likely rest easy. Money and power will rule out in the end and your so-called lily-white boys will walk, so what is your beef? Relax, the fix was in from hour one.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 06:52 PM
but I do give them their right to as vigorous a defense as the law allows
Mighty white of you as the saying goes. How about prosecutors are not suppose to bring prosecution where there is not substantial credible evidence.
You are a bigot, it may be a pc bigotry but it still does not look good on you.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 06:54 PM
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 06:55 PM
Sara
You think the ANS is emblematic of media agenda. SunnyDay comes here to get away from the media agenda. You both have strong feelings about it. End of story.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 15, 2007 at 06:57 PM
What was Albert Einstein's definition of insanity?
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Sara
I really really hope that someday you are faced with malicious and false charges and must spend in excess of 3 Million dollar defending yourself against nonsense. It would be fitting. I hope then I can tell you to relax and the fix is in.
You really should check out some of the faculty at Durham, they think just like you. All males are suspect at best, and white priveldge is everywhere and acts to keep folks down and .... I could go on but its so stupid I dont see why the shtick should be promoted.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 06:58 PM
No Gary, I'm just an old woman of no import who lived the nightmare only in my case there were 5 Phi Delts and the pressure came from the university, the fraternity and even my own family since both my Dad and Grandfather were members of that fraternity and my deceasedd Dad was a past President of the fraternity and of their Alumni Association. And, I hope you don't live in Michigan, because one of my "boys will be boys" ended up an OB-GYN doctor. Gag! I was told to keep my mouth shut because they didn't deserve to have their lives ruined over a drunken frat party. Sound familiar? That was forty years ago, but nothing has changed even with all our enlightenment and sexual revolution.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Sara, Nifong was removed by Democratic politicians.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 06:59 PM
I hope the last thing Libby Team does is hold up 2 signs....
Russert & his 22 minutes
Job involves knowing all the latest rumors and trying to beat competition for being first on the air.
Shares lawyers with Gregory (who received info from Ari) and Mitchell (who although publicly saying she knew it, was ignored by Fitz & his gj) and Matthews (the object of Libby's complaint).
Russert denies Libby told him anything as he sits with his lawyer for all of 22 minutes.
Libby & his 8 hours of grilling
Job involves unbelievable amount of national security information and problems.
Signed waivers and cooperated fully.
Subjected to a news conference that put out false information.
Subjected to 8 hours of sitting with a gj without a lawyer.
8 hours vs 22 minutes
(oh well I can dream it is in foot tall letters).
Posted by: owl | February 15, 2007 at 07:00 PM
You all have some kind of notion that I support Nifong. Give me a break. That is preposterous. He is a prosecutor, the lowest of the low. But you are all so invested in your position of protecting the boys, you just cannot see the inequities going on. My prediction is you will win and the boys will go on to be sleazes thruout their life and the victim will cave to all the outside pressures because she won't be able to take it anymore. That you can be proud of that position says alot about you. Talk about being a bigot.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:03 PM
Whatever JMH, the linear thinking toward the media is blatant and not coming strictly from Fitzieboy. The same people who argue vociferously about the terrible reporting and the political agenda of the media are the ones who don't want to talk about same in regards to other high profile cases. It is inconsistent reasoning. Silliness actually.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:08 PM
Wonder if I can sue Threadherder...let me rant on about 8 hours and TM had a new thread up long enough to have 70+ on it.
Posted by: owl | February 15, 2007 at 07:10 PM
Owl, I believe thread herder has left us for a better place. ;)
Posted by: SunnyDay | February 15, 2007 at 07:13 PM
sara
Something awful happened to you. I'm very sorry for your pain and suffering.
Girls don't deserve to be raped and boys don't desrve false allegations of rape charged against them. Yet we all know many women make false claims.
Posted by: bad | February 15, 2007 at 07:13 PM
In case you missed it Gary, I just won my case where I was accused wrongly, had my reputation trashed and suffered physical damage as a result. Although it didn't cost me $3 million to bring my case, I can say that the cost to me, my elderly ill Mother, my children and many close friends has been incalculable. But thanks for the wish, nice guy. No wonder you support those boys.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:14 PM
Sara
It sounds like you are still angry with yourself for not pressing charges then.
Yes, these young men made some bad decisions. Most of us are guilty of doing the same. But you seem to have tried and convicted them without seeing any evidence just allegations.
Please remember that no matter what the evidence shows these young men will always be remembered being charged as rapists. Is that fair?
What happened to you was wrong, but the public tarring and feathering of these three young men is also wrong. They have not been convicted of a crime. the tarring and feathering is supposed to come after not before the conviction.
My question to you is if this event did not take place should the alleged victim be charged?
Posted by: MaryW | February 15, 2007 at 07:20 PM
Bad -- I don't want anyone to be convicted on a woman's false claims. That is the last outcome I want to support. This seems to be a fact about me that is constantly ignored. I want the alleged victim to at least have her day in court to face those boys. They have every right to face their accuser too. Let the chips fall where they may, but don't tell me to shut up because media reports and defense spin is out in force against her. Believe me, she will be trashed six ways from Sunday and if she is to survive it, she'll be a stronger person than I was. A black prostitute or exotic dancer is Stephanopulous's "trailer trash" and of course, should have no standing to bring her accusations. I know this, you know this. It stinks.
I don't feel sorry for my past but to discount the damage to the case that has been done by the circling of wagons around the accused is the norm at universities. To say otherwise is naive.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:23 PM
MaryW, what public trashing. These boys have been defended since hour one and it is the alleged victim who has gotten the public trashing. That is my beef.
And, can I say it again and have anyone hear me ... I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT IN THAT HOUSE. I THINK SOMETHING DID, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE BOYS FUTURE REPUTATIONS, IF THEY DID SOMETHING AGAINST THE ALLEGED VICTIM. IF IT TURNS OUT SHE JUST MADE IT ALL UP, THEN I WILL BE AS ANGRY AT HER AS YOU ALL ARE NOW WITH NO EVIDENCE.
No matter how many names I'm called, I will stick to wanting to hear fully from both sides and make my judgments then. I am not trying to prove I'm right, since I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:28 PM
How about people standing out side their house beating on pots and carrying signs that said " Castrate" and "Confess" sound like Sara to you? Does to me.
Sara my wish was sincere. Its seems it would be the only way to get you to empathize with the plight of these very innnocent young men.
Whatever happened to you it was one a long time ago, get over it. And two, it has nothing to do with false accusations, period.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 07:42 PM
sad (are you bad now?)
I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. I'm happy you choose to spend some of your time with us. Thank you.
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2007 at 07:42 PM
Now go ahead and shout some more, cuz it really really really improves your argument.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 07:43 PM
Gary, the difference between us is that I am willing to wait and you have convicted the alleged victim without giving hera day in court. Nothing will ever persuade you and I'm tired of trying to make the case that everyone deserves their day in court, even women of dubious reputation.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Gary, you have convinced me of only one thing, you are biased and a chauvinist. So since you wished me such sweet wishes, I wish for you that you end up with one of these paragons as a son-in-law.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 07:56 PM
You two, unless you're enjoying yourselves, should give it a rest because you aren't going to change the other's mind.
Sara, my sympathies.
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 07:59 PM
I would heartily accept one of these fine young men as a son in law. The nightmare would be that one of my son's married your daughter. Your daughter of course would be fine. But listening to your victim drivel and feminist (and frankly Marxist style) class rhetoric would make me slit my throat at the Thanksgiving get together.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 15, 2007 at 08:02 PM
I'm a hard line Libertarian Hawk with a heavy dose of pragmatism thrown in. I would give up my life to defend your constitutional rights, if it came to that. If that is thin skinned then again so be it.
Then stand up for the constitutional rights of three Duke students to not be judged guilty before trial, and for their right to not be used by a malicious prosecutor for political purposes --- hell, even Mike Easley says this is a mistake and an embarrassment.
Even if they were "drunken frat boys" --- which they weren't, by the way, that was just a rental house, not a frat house --- they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Oh, and it's "Charlie", just by the by.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 15, 2007 at 08:03 PM
E = evil
n = nincompoop
s = sadistic
i = idiot
Posted by: bubarooni | February 15, 2007 at 08:10 PM
I want the alleged victim to at least have her day in court to face those boys.
Sara, there is no evidence other than her constantly changing story that supports charging these guys. There ought to be something more than a slippery story and a bunch of negative evidence (no DNA, no physical injuries consistent with a rape, and an iron-clad alibi in at least one case) to justify costing these guys this kind of stress, this kind of money, this kind of disruption of their lives.
It's okay with me if you disagree --- but don't expect me to stop saying so.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 15, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Dickerson:
The one questionable juror is the art curator who in the backward style of old newsmagazines speaks.
He just made me love him.
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2007 at 08:21 PM
Sara , it may be hard to distinguish your trauma from this case, but I assure you they are two different cases. Maybe it's a topic you want to discuss elsewhere if being contradicted about the facts and law in THIS case is so troublesome to you.
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 08:23 PM
This is 13 days before the indictment of the LaCross players. Is this normal behavior or questionable behavior?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke1.html
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Clarice, just stop it. I am not the one confusing either the law or the facts. And my own experience is good for only one thing and that is understanding fully what lengths a university and an alumni association will go to to protect reputations. Why don't you take it somewhere else if it bothers you to be disagreed with so much.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 08:28 PM
Actually, ensi is a penis size
Posted by: bad | February 15, 2007 at 08:29 PM
good 1 bad
Posted by: Ralph L. | February 15, 2007 at 08:31 PM
smacking Ralph
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 08:33 PM
Sara, there is no evidence other than her constantly changing story
Same challenge to you Charlie. Show me the sworn testimony where the alleged victim has changed her story multiple times. Her words, not somebody else's heresay or spin.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 08:34 PM
Fuggedup. The whole fuggin thread is fugged up.
I am about to ingest enough bourbon to let loose. And as the resident jester, I don't want to jeopardize my standing as jocular.
But I'm close to going Cheney on all yous.
It's a fuggin immovable object vs an irresistable force.
LET. IT. GO.
OR SUFFER THE WRATH OF HIT AND RUN UNSUPERVISED AND UNSCRIPTED AND UNADULTERATED.
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Sara,
I have not paid a great deal of attention to the Duke rape case. In the beginning I thought the lacrosse players were a bunch of wealthy arrogant racist assholes.
But you can be a wealthy arrogant racist asshole and still get screwed by a prosecutor who puts his personal ambitions above the truth of the matter.
You know you say you want this woman to have her day in Court. But it isn't her day in Court, it is their day in Court. She gets nothing whether they are deemed guilty or innocent. To get something she has to bring a civil case, which is her option regardless of what happens in the criminal case.
In law school everyone faces the day when someone asks the following question:
Which would bother you more, 10 guilty men going free or one innocent man being convicted. The usual answer is the latter, because every one last of us can imagine being the innocent man convicted.
That after all is why you are fighting so hard for Libby.
If the prosecutor is corrupt, the accused must go free. That is the price of the abuse of power. That is what is worth fighting for, because the victim in this case retains all the options she had from the day it happened.
And that my friend is something worth fighting for.
Posted by: Jane | February 15, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Sara (Squiggler):
Since I am not an MD able to prescribe tranquillizers, may I suggest a few deep breaths before posting comments for the next day or so? ;)
Posted by: Luc | February 15, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Jane, you are right it is their day in court not hers and I worded that badly.
As to the rest of you, I appreciate that your own biases have you so blinded that the only thing you can do is try to make me look like the crazy one. Just remember your position when it is another case.
The prosecutor sucks in the Duke case and has probably made it possible for these boys to get off. You think he went after them to get himself elected or just to be a jerk, I think he is one big jerk and his actions have guaranteed that these guys will get off and the alleged victim will stand as the accused. I expect this attitude from the men and the elitist women, but that does not make it right or you more believable.
What else is new. I think she deserves support, you all don't. I see that as cold and blind. You see it as me being crazy. Go figure. I see a cover up, you see a black exotic dancer who has been branded a "ho" by the media and the powerful. My gut tells me something happened, you all won't even entertain that possibility.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Oh I think something happened. But we won't ever know what, or by whom because we have a bad prosecutor who put his career before the truth. And we certainly won't know by whom, or when or why, probably ever.
Posted by: Jane | February 15, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Sara please read the column by Susan Estrich. Professor Estrich is a well known supporter of rape victims. She was raped in 1974.
As a NC native I have a strong interest in this case and the flaws it exposed in our legal system. The bottom line is that the Duke lacrosse players are guilty of some boorish behavior, but innocent of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping. The false charge damages the cause of women and girls who are real victims.
As for the media, from the first reports of the alleged incident last March until the evidence of the complete innocence of the charged lacrosse players became obvious to all but the completely blind in December, 95% or more of press reports simply assumed their guilt. The Raleigh News and Observer and the Durham Harold, the local papers in the RDU area were 100% with the accuser. If you believe the press has been on the side of the Duke kids, you are very wrong.
Finally, the alleged rape victim is also a victim of Mike Nifong. He used her in an attempt to increase his pension.
Posted by: G'daddy | February 15, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Oh I think something happened. But we won't ever know what, or by whom because we have a bad prosecutor who put his career before the truth. And we certainly won't know by whom, or when or why, probably ever.
---------------
Be careful Jane, that type of remark will get you branded around here, especially when I say I agree completely.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Re: Saras "is this normal behaviour" question.
There answer is yes. I believe it is a reference to American Psycho. If I and my friends were being hounded on campus and accused of raping a stripper and we knew the charge was complete bunk, then an email of all the horrific things we would do the next time is a form of gallows humor. It is in poor taste but it isn't a crime and it is a normal response to incredible stress and injustice.
I take it any time a woman (or man I guess) claims they are raped, there must be a trial?
Posted by: CAL | February 15, 2007 at 09:25 PM
Finally, the alleged rape victim is also a victim of Mike Nifong. He used her in an attempt to increase his pension.
-------------
This has been my position all along.
The local press may have been saying one thing, not so the national press.
I despise the victimization of America and especially the left's penchant to make women the victim all the time. It is even worse with African American leaders. But I think the evidence in this case strongly indicates that these were out of control young men full of alcohol and with inhibitions dulled and that basically they were/are racist pigs. The above email says it all. The fact that one of the players has already been in court in another state for his hate speech type activity adds to that.
I would be curious to know what the local press is saying now about the 2nd Duke rape? There has been virtually nothing on the national news, in the blogs, or online.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler | February 15, 2007 at 09:29 PM
You are doing what sylvia did on the original thread--cherry picking bits and pieces to try to make your case that these defendants did something to this woman--something, BTW, Jane did NOT say.
Not playing.
But the email is cribbed from a movie, and was not a serious threat but a juvenile reference to a script line/
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Clarice:
What is your take on how the Jury Instructions are coming along? I note that they were not finished as of 5:30 tonight, and will be working on them tomorrow. Any major problems coming up for either side?
Posted by: Jim | February 15, 2007 at 09:37 PM
DAMMIT! NUH-THING WILL BE RESOLVED HERE.
I. LOVE. SARA.
I. LOVE. JANE.
I. LOVE. GARY. (oh and that's as a hetero married male.)
No one here is gonnnnnnnnnaaaaa change their mind. So. Why. Keep. It. Up.
I. LOVE. EVERY. ONE. HERE.
::smmmmmooooooochesssss::
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2007 at 09:38 PM