Powered by TypePad

« Shocking News From San Fran | Main | Harry Potter Due Date »

February 01, 2007

Comments

hit and run

We prefer our Libby trial witnesses shaken, not stirred, thank you.

Holy cannoli, I bow before your phrase turning mastery.

LOL!

clarice

Cooper's testimony is so thin I predict that along with a Rule 29 motion on Count 33, Wells may ask the court to drop Counts 3 and 5(Cooper) on the ground that to let that go to the jury would be to ask them to speculate. There's not enough evidence there to take it to a jury.

RogerA

I genuinely appreciate the work you and the bloggers have done on this--yes even Ms Merritt. I listen to the slimy Nina Tottenberg on NPR every morning dissect the trial making it sound like a tsunami of evidence is overwhelming Mr. Libby and that every witness devastating to him; then I can at least read here what is actually happening. Thanks and esp thanks to Clarice for her insightful commentary--kind of reaffirms my faith in lawers!!

It is clear the NPR story line when Libby is acquitted that he was acquitted in spite of a mountain of evidence against him.

Jane

Yeah it will all be a Rovian plot.

clarice

On my cab ride home from the court last night I heard Nina's report. I couldn't believe we'd sat in the same trial.
You do understand these "names" run in and out--grab a quickie snippet and go on the air.
Impossible to do justice to such a complex trial that way.NPR's coverage of the case generally is appalling though.

(Nina is an old friend. Decades ago when we were all young and foolish I fixed her up with Elliott Abrams.LOL I have a pic of them together which I sometimes threaten to make public.)

PaulV

Clarice? those pics should go into National Enquirer

helpmeouthere

From EW 'Some discussion of who the mystery witness is–apparently someone from DOJ who will be very boring. Sorry. And we thought we'd have fun.'

Damn.

hit and run

Decades ago when we were all young and foolish

I have a very hard time believing this, 1)that you were ever foolish and 2)that you are not now young. Not in years, but in spirit.

roanoke

From the pre-Bond rangling-

Walton. I might be willing to have the transcript read. But when the whole videotape is played out,the press ends up being injected into this trial. I don't think their feelings about whether Admin being honest or not.

The irony...

Barney Frank

Does he need to call any witnesses at all?

That's what I was wondering myself.
It takes guts, but it is often the best indication of how a prosecution or plainitiff has done; usually better than what third parties have to say.

Partly depends on what Russert says of course, but I can't see that the prosecution was so weak, that Libby would roll the dice without a defense. Especially since we don't know what he's got. Projecting an outcome now is like predicting a win with the away team ahead one run, but the home team yet to bat; and Fitz doesn't appear to me to be Mariano Rivera.

Jane

Does he need to call any witnesses at all?

I woke up with the exact same thought (which is perhaps too graphic an editorial on my day).

OT The two guys charged in planting the hoaxes around Boston yesterday (which is a huge story here) just gave the most bizarre press conference I have ever seen. They had no remorse, talked about their hair - only took questions about their hair and treated the entire situation like a joke. That little blunder - with their attorney standing by will probably land them both in jail. It was absolutely appalling.

politicaobscura

Nina's report this morning was particularly gruesome, inaccurate, and biased.

She used to be a really interesting report .... alas, now she is nothing but a shill for the left....

clarice

It is traditional in any event for the defense to move to dismiss at the end of the prosecution's case. If Wells does, he'll file papers this weekend before the trial resumes.Keep your eyes on pacer,

PaulL

Walton *should* dismiss, but I don't think he will. He *should* have done a lot of things so far, but he seems to pretty much buy into the prosecution's argument.

And he continues to mention Libby testifying. He wouldn't do that if he were planning to dismiss.

Ranger

Well, it seems like the true believers are starting to understand that there really is no there there. They convinced themselves that why Fitz showed us was just a facade, that behind it was the 'real case' he couldn't share with the public. Looks like what Fitz showed was all he ever had (and actually more than he had, when constrained by the rules of evidence).

RogerA

As the fair Clarice mentions a friendship with Nina Tottenberg, I feel compelled to say why I used the adjective Slimy when referring to Nina T: her role is smearing Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill imbroglio--

Rick Ballard

RogerA,

The Thomas bit is just one instance. Ms. Tottenberg has never changed a whit in my estimation. She's always peddled the same dreck, it's the dreck that has lost its allure.

clarice

Well, it was a "scoop". To her credit, however, she was one of the first to tag David Brock as a liar.In his book about this when he was casting himself as a "conservative" he quoted her several times saying things she said she never had said. I defended her charges against him against conservatives who considered his report gospel.
Then he switched sides.

Clearly in that case she was working hand in glove with staffers on the Judiciary Committee --something useful for legal reporters and for FBI and DOJ officials (see this damn case).

RogerA

Thanks Clarice. my concern that she abandoned her role as a reporter and became a participant in the affair. Had she recused herself from her reportorial duties I would have had a lot more respect for her.

Tom Bowler

I have a recollection of Judge Walton months ago saying he would allow the defense to contend that Libby was involved in rebutting Wilson's charges on their merit, not punishing him. At the same time I think he said he wouldn't allow the case to turn into an argument over the justification for going into Iraq. I don't see how they can do one without getting into the other - at least a little bit.

The McClellan press gaggle tape will be shown to the jury only after being editing down to remove questions from the obviously disbelieving reporters. Prejudicial. But, in view of the fact that this case would not have gone anywhere without our fourth estate hyping the angle that the administration lied, wouldn't Libby be well served his defense can paint the show Wilson's story to be completely without merit, and show the press all too eager to go along with it?

Since the judge has said Libby's lawyers can make the argument that they were rebutting Wilson, would anybody like to comment on the chances that the case will go in that direction?

I'll have to check back later - day job, you know.

politicaobscura

Wow, now they are talking about non-disclosure agreements... working really hard to get the classified status as an issue into the jury through the back door.

Other Tom

One of the most useful posts to appear anywhere on JOM in the past week was PaulL's small tutorial on the uncertainties of every jury trial. Those uncertainties are present when one is in the courtroom, even when one is a participant. They are compounded when you're limited to reading a trial transcript (the "cold record"), and far moreso when reading not a transcript but the bloggers' noble efforts to summarize as fast as they can. None of us can see the reaction of the jurors or the demeanor of the witnesses.

There are pretty much similar uncertainties concerning any judge, and I somewhat disagree with PaulL's assessment of where Walton stands, to the extent I can deduce anything at all--he strikes me as fundamentally fair.

All of that preamble is a huge hedge in advance of the obligatory uninformed predictions: (1) Walton will dismiss the two Cooper counts on Libby's Rule 29 motion, and the rest of the case will go forward; (2) Libby will put on a defense case; (3) The defense case will include testimony by Libby.

Anyone else?

clarice

As you can see in this trial, on big stories the reporters who get ahead are very often those smack dab in the middle themselves.

Jeff Z

That SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) paragraph was pretty stern stuff. Does anybody know how many years Fitzgerald put Armitage for on that one? I don't remember seeing the story.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Marcy sez Fitz ain't foolin' her. This isn't about no small perjury thing:

---------quote--------
Here's to many, many more questions to come on all of this. Every last piece of this mess, every rock turned over and the festering masses hiding underneath expose to the disinfectant of public scrutiny, every last nuance and backroom deal and wink and nod from the media and failure to exact oversight by members of Congress. Every ass-covering handshake deal.

It will not be completed once this trial has concluded, not by half. But Fitzgerald and his team have set down a marker for the members of Congress to follow: the truth shall set you free. Here's to more and more digging in the days and weeks to come. Because if we have learned nothing else from this horrific mess, let us learn this: oversight and accountability are exactly what Congress ought to be doing with its time, every damn day. No one, not even the President of the United States, gets a pass.

It is well past time for some accountability. Here's to sunlight and the public. At long last.
----------endquote------------

Rick Ballard

I'm already in for dismissal of 1, 3 and 5. Think that 2 and 4 go to the jury.

I don't see how the prosecution can finish today. The defense is going to attempt (at least I hope they attempt) to get more of Libby's gj testimony in than the amount Fitz will proffer on exhibit.

centralcal

Regarding reporters getting ahead when they are smack dab in the middle of the story - that probably is true a good percentage of the time. However, I don't think that will prove to be true here. Miller, no longer star reporter at NYT. Cooper gone from Time. Dickerson right now scrambling for credibility. and so on and so on.

danking70

Here's to Marcy's head exploding when Libby is aquitted.

Pofarmer

Why does classified status matter. Libby isn't accused of leaking it!!!

danking70

Jason Leopold siting:


Cheney's Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair

By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash

t r u t h o u t | Report

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml

Barney Frank

Other Tom,

(1)Walton won't dismiss any counts.(2)Libby will put on a defense and (3)Libby either will or will not testify. :)
Can't decide on number 3. I suspect he will and he may want to but don't know if his attornies want him to. Depends on whether they perceive him as goofy as some of his testimony paints him to be or whether he is sharp enough to handle the cross.
So a tentative and plausibly deniable yes on (3).

Rick Ballard

"Here's to sunlight and the public."

Great. Let's finish up old business first. Barrett alledges a coverup (at very high levels) of abuse and interference by the IRS in the Cisneros matter.

Perhaps Congress could start with that? Maybe dig into Ms. Clinton's relationship with the IRS commissioner?

clarice

centralcal--But usually it's a good career move.
Rick--from your mouth to God's ears..

clarice

danking--I appreciate her stenography..the rest not so much.

Jeralyn is a very pleasant, good natured person used to hearing 2 sides of things. EW has to me the determined mien of an old time prohibitionist.

topsecretk9

Fitz says Libby “switched stories” - doesn't that appear the same thing Fitz is doing now?

Jane

Great. Let's finish up old business first. Barrett alledges a coverup (at very high levels) of abuse and interference by the IRS in the Cisneros matter.

Can we leap to Sandy Burglar after that?

PaulL

Thank you, Other Tom.

I'm not saying that Walton is unfair. I just wish he were *more* fair : )

This is a shameful case to begin with and I would rather that Walton not treat it respectfully.

Anyway, I'd of course be very happy if some charges were dropped. The danger with 5 counts going to a jury, *any* jury in *any* case, is the committee tendency to "split it down the middle"--acquit on 2 or 3 counts, convict on the balance. Doing that makes jurors feel proud of themselves for being so fair, and not setting themselves up for too much criticism from either side.

If only the Russert charges make it through, then the "split it down the middle" factor goes away.

roanoke

B: We agreed in our motion to a cautionary instruction. The govt has agreed repeatedly to admit evidence regarding classified nature of Ms Wilson's employ. I think it's ridiculous for the defense to think we'll get up to argue that he actually did something wrong. The defendant has taken the position in this case that defendant had not motive to lie. He opened and said Libby had no motive to lie.

Walton: I think that does add to the equation. If there's something specific in agreement that should be admitted.

B Agreement specifically state that he has been debriefed wrt his obligations.

Walton: You're winning. I'm asking whether defense is saying something specific in there that would be prejudicial. I agree they can introduce at least some of this.

Jeffress; agreement they want to introduce has to do with classified info. They also want to enter SCI, there's been no suggestion that Plame's employment was in any of these compartments.

B Your honor, he stamped a number of his documents with SCI and Top Secret, including the note from Cheney. Whether or not he would believe this would fall into the other areas. [Brilliant!!!! She's using their classification overstretch back on them!!!]

Walton. We'll discuss it when we come back. I agree that at least a substantial portion of that should go to jury. I'd ask you all to think about it. see if we can work out something.


I think Walton is about to lose control of the trial-unless something miraculous happens over lunch.

Sara (Squiggler)

Libby is supposed to be a prolific note maker in order to keep track of the myriad of subjects and facts that poured through his office and the OVP each day. So, I think the best testimony Libby could give is, "once I was permitted to go over my own notes, I discovered some conflation and confusion in who said what and when, but the substance of my interaction was exactly the same. I was not the first or even the second or third to leak info on Valerie Plame and reporters were on the story by the time I understood that our attempt to correct Wilson's lies about "behests" by the VP were being perceived as some kind of vendetta against his wife, it was front page news."

Alcibiades

Why does classified status matter. Libby isn't accused of leaking it!!!

Fitzgerald is alleging that it goes to Libby's state of mind, inducing him to cover up, as opposed to choosing the path of wisdom and crawling to Fitz to get immunity and confess, like Ari and Armitage did.

That's why he believes that Libby "misremembered" all this data about what he told to reporters.

centralcal

"...the determine mien of an old time prohibitionist."

ha! ha!

Other Tom

Jane just beat me to it. I'm sure Marcy, principled good-government advocate that she is, is simply dying to turn over all the rocks covering up whatever it was that Berger kept from the 9/11 commission--a commission whose mandate was to find all the facts in an effort to protect the American people in the future.

I'd also be interested to know how in the hell he cut such a favorable deal, and why the judge approved it. Misdemeanor, my ass.

clarice

And Libby will get the judge to put up a neon sign that there is no evidence that she was and the prosecution isn't claiming she was, that the prosecution is merely arguing that there is evidence Libby thought she might be and therefore had a motive to lie.

The evidence on that is paper thin--it was the not very persuasive evidence of Grenier etc.

hit and run

OT

It's about time Bush took media malfaesence on head on. (from Taranto, Best of the Web)


"I'm about to crank this sucker up"

Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. Wearing a pair of stylish safety glasses--at least more stylish than most safety glasses--Bush got a mini-tour of the factory before delivering remarks on the economy. "I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety."Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned. The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes.




Of course, just like Iraq, Bush went in without a plan and screwed up the operation!!!!

clarice

A little sherbet--Compare this to the Foley case.(In fact IIRC the party affiliation of this guy was buried in the last graph of this story when it first appeared.)
"PIERRE, SD — The South Dakota Senate on Wednesday censured Dan Sutton, a Democrat from Flandreau, who admitted sharing a bed with a former legislative page last winter. The 32-2 vote came after three days of hearings before a special disciplinary committee last week — and right after a vote to expel him failed. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249130,00.html

Mothers don'y let your boys grow up to be pages.

Barney Frank

I think letting this in, going to Libby's state of mind, increases the chances of him testifying significantly.

centralcal

the long quote Sullivan attributes above to Marcy, was actually written by Christy Hardin Smith, I think.

Dan S

H&R,

W clearly needs driving lessons. He missed.

Pofarmer

that the prosecution is merely arguing that there is evidence Libby thought she might be and therefore had a motive to lie.

Or evidence that he would be very careful around reporters.

Sara (Squiggler)

Of course, just like Iraq, Bush went in without a plan and screwed up the operation!!!!

GWB knows how to drive a tractor. He probably has one at his ranch just like it. Never ever underestimate him. It is what I love best about the guy. He had a plan and it worked exactly as he intended. Hehehehehe

Serenity Now
Rory O'Connor: "Fitzgerald says 'the central argument of the case' is that Libby learned classified information from official sources and then illegally leaked it to reporters. Libby then 'switched stories' to say he got the information from reporters instead of official sources—his motive was to switch his sources from officials to news reporters. 'That is the cleanest way to take himself off the hook,' notes Fitzgerald."

TM: "That may be the central argument, but can the prosecution make it? They are not allowed to tell the jury that Plame's status was classified. Furthermore, they have no evidence at all that Libby knew her status was classified, which means that a prosecution under the IIPA was impossible (even if Plame herself qualified for 'covert' status - not all classified agents do). Libby is a lawyer and Addington testified that he offered Libby a copy of the IIPA, so one might imagine that Libby was aware of these issues. Fitzgerald won't be able to argue that Libby was on a hook, so how can this be a central argument? "

Fitzgerald should argue something like: Libby feared being subject to a political, vindictive prosecution, so he had motive to lie about his actions even if he thought they were legal.

I'm only half kidding.

Sara (Squiggler)

Is anything going on in the courtroom or did the waste the entire morning and then go to lunch?

Carol Herman

Did Nina Tottenberg ever go to bed with Justice Stevens? I seem to remember a book out there called THE BRETHREN. About the Supreme-o's and their "behind closed doors" altercations.

Memories are often inaccurate. But I do "remember" or mis-remember that NINA was the "mole." And, again, if I'm not mistaken, WOODWARD "took her dictation."

Seems funny, Monica had to leave to go to England, just to find "employment.' These left scoundrels gave her no succor; even though she "pleased" the president, at least 6 times. (Where the "I don't remember" defense surely did it's work at skirting our laws.)

People made fun of Ken Starr. But he provided the official record.

And, Fitzgerald? Supposedly a friend of the left's? When this is over the press will be exposed as just a bunch of liars.

Oh, yeah. Cooper and his "diss." He said it meant "disparage." And, not distressed. Or even Dis-paired. Or disgrace. And, this is supposed to hang Libby?

Thanks, Clarice, for explaining RULE 29.

It's like Catch-22, though, now.

hit and run

Sara - you are spot on as usual. He needs to whisper to an aide just within earshot of a reporter, "You mean I didn't hit a single one?" just to keep them on their toes.

Oh and Sara:
Is anything going on in the courtroom or did the waste the entire morning and then go to lunch?

If I had a nickel for every time my boss said that (substituting office for your word courthouse)....

Ranger

Is anything going on in the courtroom or did the waste the entire morning and then go to lunch?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 01, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Pretty much. It sounded like they still had some stuff to go over after lunch too, but that me not be until after the witness testifies.

And the Jurors have been in the courthouse since breakfast.

clarice

While we're waiting--there's Lileks on Kerry, a classic.

http://www.newhouse.com/lileks-giving-context-to-pariah-kerry.html Kerry

maryrose

I thought all covert classified stuff was out. Walton is giving Fitz to much leeway to pad his flimsy case.

clarice

http://www.newhouse.com/lileks-giving-context-to-pariah-kerry.html>Pariah Kerry

roanoke

clarice-

Are you in the courthouse today?

azaghal
UPDATE: This is fascinating, from Rory O'Connor (2):

Fitzgerald says “the central argument of the case” is that Libby learned classified information from official sources and then illegally leaked it to reporters. Libby then “switched stories” to say he got the information from reporters instead of official sources—his motive was to switch his sources from officials to news reporters. “That is the cleanest way to take himself off the hook,” notes Fitzgerald.

That may be the central argument, but can the prosecution make it?


Of course not. There's no way Fitz can say to a jury: the defendant committed a crime that he's never been charged with: that's the central argument of this case. He can't make the argument without charging him.

JM Hanes, I read two of your three links. In light of all that has come to light, the quotes from Tatel and Walton are simply surreal. That Tatel should be so solicitous of Armitage's reputation and not, apparently give a fig about Libby's--too much. I read that all before, of course, but sometimes you need to be reminded. In light of this, I'll put in a plug for my Catechism cites on the Open Coop thread. It applies to prosecutors, journo--and judges, too.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice, I meant to ask you this yesterday. Was there anyone from MSNBC in the media room when it came out that Tim Russert hates Chris Matthews and, if so, how did they react?

clarice

No--there was a spot available but I figured it would be boring today and I still have to figure out what keeps knocking out my wireless connection. (Rick had an idea we're working on).

Here's Apuzzo who you can trust on the judge's rulings this morning:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2007/02/01/national/w100505S47.DTL>Apuzzo

maryrose

sara:
In answer to your question-yes they did indeed waste the entire morning and are now at lunch. They better hurry up or Russert will get held over until Monday.

hit and run

Oh, Clarice, do NOT get me started on John F'n Carry. I have so much disdain built up over his latest comments. I am throwing things at the tv, kick the dog mad at him.

Well, not so much about the comments themselves -- I expect as much from Carry.

I am pissed that he made those comments over a weekend, thus depriving me of mocking him at the time of the statement. Grrrrrr!

clarice

Sara,Shuster--He grimaced and looked upset all day..

hit and run

clarice:
No--there was a spot available but

Do you think that the media frenzy might be dying down a bit as the weakness in Fitz' case is being exposed.

(yes, there's a lot of bias in that statement, i admit freely to that)

ghostcat

azaghal -

If you assume that Armitage is a proxy for Powell, it all (all) makes sense. There is no one else affiliated with the Bush administration whom journalists would go through such contortions to protect.

centralcal

That's why we need Clarice to be at the courthouse, so we can get these little cameo's of our illustrious media. Poor Schuster - Matthews, Russert, Gregory, Mitchell - all their names get bandied about and he has to figure a way to spin his report on camera and not mention any of it. It's a scream! Wonder how he is coping on Olbermann's show???

Ranger

It looks like Fitz is back to his argument in the presser: This is a case of leaking the identity of a classified CIA operative, but I'm not charging anyone with that, just lieing about it, but trust me, it is about leaking classified information.

Fitz must really feel like he is loosing if he is falling back on that.

Sue

"If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward.

::grin::

jwest

Clarice,

Doesn’t anyone in the press room ever ask Schuster what trial he is watching?

Do people ask him about his Hardball reports?

azaghal

As it turns out, Powell was privy to the truth all along. But how many reporters do you think knew that Armitage had been leaking and have done their best to conceal that. Andrea Mitchell, for one, went through some pretty considerable verbal contortions. Powell may have been the highest ranking leaker in the Admin, but who knows whether he was the best leaker for the press. :-(

roanoke

azaghal-

This trial seems to be inverting the old mem "it's not the crime it's the coverup."

Except where is the crime?

Doesn't Fitz have to show criminal intent?

Also what about "precedence" after this trial?

clarice-

Thanks for the Apuzzo link-just what I was looking for-

I hate figuring out wi-fi. Sometimes I can get it and someplaces I can't and I never can figure out how it happens either way...

Ranger

Well, one of the NDAs is in. I wonder if now Wells can ask Armitage if he thought her identity was classified?

centralcal

They brought the jury in finally.

Sue

Walton lets far more prosecution stuff in than defense.

Sue

I wonder if now Wells can ask Armitage if he thought her identity was classified?

Or if he signed one. I think Fitzgerald is opening up stuff he wanted left alone, like proof of her status.

azaghal

Ranger, I note that Rory didn't put hardly anything in quotes. However, any self respecting Judge, confronted by contentions of that sort, should have braced that sucker immediately and told him to never raise such contentions again in his court. It's just ridiculous that he should be allowed to say such things--unchallenged--in front of a judge.

roanoke, I'm puzzled about the whole intent thing. If Fitz can't show any substantive crime, it would appear that he'll have to argue that Libby was afraid that he'd lose his job or that he mistakenly believed that he had committed a crime. The second would be impossible to build a case for. The first might sound plausible to a jury initially, but runs up against the seemingly very forthright character of Libby's GJ testimony. From what I've seen of it I was quite impressed by how straightforward he appears to have been. He really appears to have believed that honesty was the best policy with Fitz and took great pains to explain himself fully--no verbal games. Naive, I guess.

Ranger

It is kind of odd, Judge Walton starts out sidding with the defense in these issues, then, over time, gives Fitz pretty much what he wants. Maybe he is realizing that without it, Fitz has not chance of winning.

Sara (Squiggler)

Musings -- when I sat on the murder trial jury I've mentioned before, we were very frustrated. We spent more time wandering around the courthouse halls then we did in the courtroom. Our trial lasted 17 weeks. (Yes, it was a Calif. court.) If it had been condensed to actual trial testimony, we could have finished in 2 or 3 weeks at the most. I hated it because (1) I was missing work, and (2) I was also going to school and it really made it hard to spend so much wasted time I could have spent at the library or studying. Jurors do not like down time. I was the youngest on that jury and pretty much kept my mouth shut, but some of the older ones were constantly complaining and one man threatened to quit if he had to waste any more time sitting on hard courthouse benches in the hall.

Jim E.

I wonder if Wells should have deferred his opening statement until the start of the defense case. (That's an option for attorneys, I believe.) Part of the reason Fitz's team has been able to get in some of this classified info is to deal with Libby's state of mind. In the opening, Wells said that Libby was totally innocent, and thus had no reason to mislead the GJ. Now, Fitz is being given some latitude so that he can say to the jurors that Libby had motive to lie because he was worried about whether he had disclosed classified info.

I'm no lawyer, so maybe Wells' opening had nothing to do with the judge's decision. But Fitz's team kept bringing it up during arguments in order to (successfully) argue that some classified docs could be entered into evidence. They kept saying how they were trying to rebut what Wells said in the opening.

hit and run

OK, sorry, OT, but mocking the media and specifically MSNBC isn't ever completely OT I suppose.

Remember after the Cheney hunting accident, Dana Milbank showed up on Olberman with the orange hunting vest.

I think after Matthews drooling act, Milbank shoulda shown up with a rain coat.

OK, just a dream, they're all on the same team...but still...would been somewhat equivalent.


ooops, looks like trial resumed. Sorry, I'll shut up.

clarice

Armitage has publicly said that he never saw a covert agent's name in a memo like that and didn't believe her id was secret. Fitz thru the testimony of the first week's witnesses tried to establish that Libby did have reason to believe she was.
Nevertheless--and all weakness of that testimony aside--It isn't clear that Libby did tell anyone (Cooper stinks on that point as does Miller and Russert says it never came up).

Ranger

Now Friz just tried to sneek in the second 2x6 article. WTF... when is the judge going to sanction him for that kind of thing.

politicaobscura

I am stunned they are letting in all this talk about "leaking of Classified material".... when that is not what he is charged with... it is clearly needlessly prejudicial to the defense.

clarice

I started out as an appellate lawyer, and I'm one of those people who concentrates better on the written word..I "see" this trial as if in transcript form and can picture Wells' arguments to the jury..And my summary above is his argument so far.

roanoke

Well here now this looks just like what Dan S was alluding to-


From FDL
B:There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.

Now there using the "slippery slope" argument?

azaghal-

What is Fitz doing with this "state of mind" argument?

So he was afraid he might have committed a crime still doesn't mean Fitz has a crime to charge him with...


Wow...if I was on the defense right now I'd be needing a smoke and a pancake.


Cycloptichorn

Yeah, but it provides reasoning to show why he had motive to lie to the GJ

maryrose

Is the state of mind argument of Fitz going to ruled acceptable?

clarice

The defense anticipated this from day one.It's no surprise to them. Their strategy certainly takes account of it.

SunnyDay

Fitz wants to make the jury think "Libby leaked classified info" - but not have to prove that info was classified.

danking70

"B:There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington."

Is this Bond, the prosecution's witness, commenting on previous testimony?

roanoke

Shoot I would think the "state of mind" angle for the prosecutor would always be the weakest way to go.

The defendant is always closer to "his state of mind" [unless he's insane]and I think the jury would always give the benefit of the doubt to that type of argument to the runner, erh Libby.

roanoke

I think this forces Libby to take the stand.

SunnyDay

The judge seems to be trying to force Libby to take the stand.

roanoke

danking70-

I thinki t's Bonamici(sp?) a lawyer for the Prosecution.

clarice

If the prosecution has not sufficiently demonstrated that he said what Cooper and Miller said he did and Russert says he said nothing what difference is his state of mind?

roanoke

I guess Fitz can tell us-he's the "expert" as to Libby's state of mind.

Rick Ballard

DanKing,

That was Bonamici - a Fitz co-conspirator.

Cycloptichorn

There have been other witnesses by the prosecution whose testimony hurts Libby besides reporters, yaknow. Can't just ignore them and focus on the reporters.

'The judge seems to be trying to force Libby to take the stand.'

Um, earlier in the trial he basically stated that there would be no memory defense unless Libby did take the stand. So I'm not sure why this is a revelation now.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame