Stop This Wheel From Rolling

I have been advised that I will enjoy the Raw Story interview with Marcy Wheeler, now famous as one of the livebloggers covering the Libby trial at firedoglake, and whom I have praised many times in the past.  I certainly liked the opening:

BB: I didn’t realize how serious the loophole in Fitzgerald’s strategy was and how profoundly it affected the course of the investigation. But at the same time he probably couldn’t have moved forward without promising to limit the investigation to only known leakers. Talk about that, if you can.

MW: Armitage is the perfect example because people on the right always say how dare Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t find the Bob Woodward/Armitage’s connection. But had he done what he needed to do to find that, he would have needed to subpoena every single journalist who spoke to Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, Bartlett, Hadley, Condi. And you’re beginning to get into the range of things. They were all potential leakers and probably to some degree were involved. There’s no way you would’ve been able to subpoena all of that.

Oh, good point (where is my darned "eyeroll" key?).  But I have a different idea - since Armitage had confessed to leaking to Novak, and since the original INR memo which mentioned Valerie Wilson's connection to her husband's trip had been circulated at the senior levels of the State Dept in early June, why not ask to see Armitage's phone records and appointment calendar for June?

That may have seemed too complicated for Special Counsel Fitzgerald, but when the AP tried that incredibly subtle approach, guess what they found:

Then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage met with Washington Post
reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame. Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked ``private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.

Yup, those folks on the right sure do have unrealistic expectations.  So what is the guess on the left - did Fitzgerald ask Armitage about the Woodward appointment and get a, hmm, not a lie, a flawed memory?  Or did Fitzgerald forget to check Armitage's calendar?  Let's drag Christy Hardin Smith in for her swooning view of Fitzgerald's unrelenting investigatory technique.

Here, methinks Ms. Wheeler has been relying on the NY Times, or her own trial coverage:

John Hannah was a huge bust for the defense. They had a great witness, John Hannah, saying if Libby took 2 hrs on July 8 to meet with Judith Miller there’d be no way he’d forget it.

Oh, please.  Libby didn't forget it - it is all over his grand jury testimony.  What he remembered was the double-secret declassification of the NIE by Bush and Cheney so that Libby could leak the NIE to Miller, and Hannah never said anything different.   Here is Ms. Wheeler's liveblog:

F If he gave someone an hour or two, it was something Libby thought important.

TYOI WRT me, yes.

"Something" equals "wife"?  Really?  Couldn't have been the NIE, despite all the machinations preceding that leak?  Please.

More prescience:

BB: So predictions? Verdict?

MW: I think Wells is going to make a very concerted effort at jury nullification. In his closing statement he’s going to harp on: Rove leaked, Ari [Fleischer] leaked, Armitage leaked and they’re not doing time, they’re not even charged. 

Well, predictions are always hazardous, especially about the future.  However, Jeralyn Merritt had predicted that the jury nullification gambit would be set aside in favor of reasonable doubt and I had agreed (in her comments).  Check the reporting, make the call (hint - the defense was all reasonable doubt).

And let's close with this gem on the freedom of blogging:

And I’ve said this before. I wouldn’t want to give up the ability to say, ‘I’m going to speculate wildly. It is speculation, but here’s my basis for it.’ And I mean, we figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do.

Uhh, waddya mean "We"?  To her credit Ms. Wheeler did accept the evidence of her own eyes when faced with a redacted document.  Having been dragged kicking and screaming to this point, however, her supporting hypothesis fell wildly short of the mark - her guess was that Armitage leaked the info about Ms. Plame only as an example of the outrageous lengths to which Cheney and Company were prepared to go to shame Joe Wilson. Here, she attempts to imagine the Armitage-Woodward exchange:

Dick, Pincus' article said the CIA envoy was an Ambassador. Do you know who it is?

Yeah, Bob, it's Joe Wilson, the guy who took on Saddam during the Gulf War. He used to be stationed in Niger--facilitated the transition from military rule in 1999, too--so he's got a great relationship with the people named in the Niger documents. And he knows a lot about the uranium business.

Oh geez. He would know better than anyone. So how did Cheney's office manage to bury the intelligence?

Well, they're saying that Wilson's wife, who works at the CIA as a WMD analyst, suggested him for the trip. They're trying to suggest he wasn't qualified.

For comparison (OK, I am bitter in expectation of a Libby conviction - there, I said it!), here was my own thinking as of Nov 2005:

And, hypothetically of course, as the seniors at State retold their tale, the tidbit about the whole pointless Wilson exercise being orchestrated by his CIA wife was not a talking point - it was a punchline.

Listen to the tape of Armitage yukking it up with Woodward and make the call.

Grr. 

Comments

[clarice]

OT--sorry, that Sunny Day . A quick hyperlink to her doc file is listed at Cboldts.(Linda Cox files)

[JM Hanes]

Rich:

I have no idea how you managed the leap to "uncontrollable emotional breakdown" but you've been offered any number of reasons for Wells either being, or wanting to appear, emtionally spent after his closing -- all of which make considerably more sense that the idea that he was hanging his head in defeat.

I can also imagine several reasons that Team Libby was slow to react, none of which come anywhere close to your pied-eyed theory of incompetence. Just for starters, the actual stunt pulled by Fitzgerald exceeded almost everyone's expectations by several orders of magnitude. That said, however, before deciding if/when/how to raise objections, the Defense would have to make a whole series of complex calculations.

For example, Fitz was handing them an appeal, and conceivably even a mistrial, on a golden platter. Should they stop him? They obviously don't a mistrial if they think they can get an acquittal instead. OTOH, they do want to preserve their options for appeal. If they sense that Fitz' performance is going over badly with the jury, do they really want to take away his shovel? Raising objections during your opposition's closing is also a real double edged sword in terms of its potential impact on the jury.

Indeed, that last bit of conventional wisdom may be part of why Jeffries, not Wells, was ultimately designated to do the deed/be the bad cop. In addition, having decided to go with an emotional appeal at the end of his closing, Wells may not have wanted to risk spoiling the moment, so to speak, or his connection to the jurors, by abruptly shifting gears and jumping back up to raise arcane legal points.

If nothing else, just look at the end result of this bone you've been picking. Judge Walton essentially told the jury that Fitzgerald was out of control and saying things he didn't mean. If that's not a defense lawyer's dream come true, what is?

[topsecretk9]

LanceLong

You never give up at Scary's do you? I sure love THE COOL HEADED RESPONSES YOU GET - HE JUST CAN"T RESIST HIS LUNATIC URGES.

[hit and run]

Sue:
H&R,

I hope you studied. Clarice is having another pop quiz!

Study? You kidding me.

Does that mean I'm unprepared?

Nope.

After her last pop quiz, I made small cheat sheets I can hide in my sleeve.

[vnjagvet]

Emotional rapport is the sine qua non of the trial lawyer, in my opinion; rapport with the client, rapport with the jury, and rapport with the judge.

Command of the evidence that actually went in at trial(as opposed to the "known facts")is very important too, but without rapport, no one will hear you.

Logic and clear expression are helpful, but without that emotional link with the jury, none of it will be effective.

12 jurors simply cannot each absorb the plethora of details coming at them in a trial without some sort of emotional bond to make them care about those details.

The trial lawyer must make them care. The more jurors that care for your side, the likelier you are to win.

[vnjagvet]

JMH:

The judge's message at least conveyed that Fitz was out of bounds, if not out of control.

I have tried to verdict over 200 cases, both criminal and civil in federal and state courts all over the country and never have objected to my opponent's final argument. And no opponent has ever objected to mine.

To have an objection sustained and be admonished in front of the jury by the Judge on final means you are seriously over the top.

[JM Hanes]

The Wilson's civil suit is strictly a money-making endeavor.

They coralled the cheapest available legal help to assist with the launch, and their fund raising appeal will continue right up to the day the case is tossed. They will negotiate that little speed bump by mounting yet another putative attempt to seek justice in yet another venue.

[Abu Al-Poopypants]

FYI, there's a new thread.

[Sue]

To have an objection sustained

To have an objection overruled during closing arguments is even worse, IMO.

[Other Tom]

Outing a CIA agent? You want outing a CIA agent? I cut the following from Taranto's Inside the Web piece today. When the LA Times wants to out a CIA agent, it sure as hell knows how to do it:

"The Los Angeles Times boasts that it has identified three CIA pilots who are facing kidnapping charges in Germany over a 2003 counterterrorism operation there:

"The names they used were all aliases, but The Times confirmed their real identities from government databases and visited their homes this month after a German court in January ordered the arrest of the three 'ghost pilots' and 10 other alleged members of the CIA's special renditions unit on charges of kidnapping and causing serious bodily harm to Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, three years ago.

"None of the pilots responded to repeated requests for comment left with family members and on their home telephones. The Times is not publishing their real names because they have been charged only under their aliases."

But it does offer plenty of details about them:

"In real life, the chief pilot is 52, drives a Toyota Previa minivan and keeps a collection of model trains in a glass display case near a large bubbling aquarium in his living room. Federal aviation records show he is rated to fly seven kinds of aircraft as long as he wears his glasses. . . .

"His copilot, who used the alias Fain, is a bearded man of 35 who lives with his father and two dogs in a separate subdivision. . . .

"The third pilot, who used the alias Bird, is 46, drives a Ford Explorer and has a 17-foot aluminum fishing boat. Certified as a flight instructor, he keeps plastic models of his favorite planes mounted by the fireplace in his living room in a house that backs onto a private golf course here [in a town of 13,000 the Times identifies in its dateline]."

I await the response from the VIP's.

[JM Hanes]

vnjagvet:

Busted for hyperbole! :)

[clarice]

OT, Lori Byrd at Wizbang lives near there and is blogging it--she says the descriptions make it possible for anyone in the area to identify the agents as it's a very small community.

[Other Tom]

Thanks TSk9. I am unaware of how Spymaster Larry responds, because once I heave my vaseline grenade into his place I never return to view the carnage. Two minutes ago I just posted the Taranto piece I posted above here, and appended a few remarks about the VIP's. That oughta stir 'em up. (And I didn't even enter my appearance as Long Lance.)

[PaulL]

Other Tom,

By definition, any leak by a newspaper is a "good leak" and will not be prosecuted.

Democrats like those leaks and Republicans are too afraid to go against the press. After all, the press includes extremely scary people like Russert, Gregory, Mitchell, Cooper, Miller, et cetera.

[Pofarmer]

Unless someone's finger on the off switch, I do not think Fitz is through. Presser, 5 Rove media blitz, blackmailing a WH for 3 years? That is a true believer aiming at the top.

So you think his close served as notice that he's comin for em?

[jerry]

"Jerry is bringing theories from next door that aren't his, just for the record."

They're all mine Sue, I think, but I could have read them sometime, somehwere... where BTW?

You are right that I did post these ideas on EWs site yesterday morning, with some subsequent feedback from her. I woke up yesterday thinking this.

I put it here today as TM was referring to EWs comments on Fitz's restricted focus re:Armitage and I thought someone somewhere might be interested.

Male/female, silly human details, we're all equal here on the web.

[topsecretk9]

You know what's so risible about that story? It's allegedly CIA employee and Larry friend Mary O'Macarthy that committed treason and put those 3 in danger...because she apparently didn't like it. ( i wouldn't be one bit surprised if Valerie Plame were a source for those leaks too - was the LA Time written by Waas buddy Tom Hamburger?)

Hypocrites all.

[kate]

clarice-there are good, DNC agents, er, agents like Val and then there are bad agents like people who don't do what the LA Time likes.

[clarice]

The only way to keep the press from publishing secrets apparently is to get Cathy Martin to leak it to them.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Male/female, silly human details, we're all equal here on the web.

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[MayBee]

The only way to keep the press from publishing secrets apparently is to get Cathy Martin to leak it to them.

HA!

[kate]

I want to know what people think Bush will say if Libby is convicted. Will he say how he thinks Fitz is a fine fellow who conducted a dignified investigation?

I think is was Michele Malkin who said that Bush pulls the rug out from under his supporters. Maybe a little better treatment of Ashcroft could have prevented a lot of this nonsense. One does get tired of fighting for Bush.

[JM Hanes]

Speaking of Fitgerald stunts, I ran across this nugget via Media Bloggers, over at Court TV:

Happy Ash Wednesday to all. I was reminded of the religious observance by a reporter in the media room who told a good story about Patrick Fitzgerald showing up in court with ash on his forehead during the Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman trial -- and the defense responding (successfully) by asking the judge for a recess. He didn't seem to have anything on his face this morning.

[Pofarmer]

I think is was Michele Malkin who said that Bush pulls the rug out from under his supporters.

Bush tries a little too hard to be accomodating to the "other side", and they use that tendency to pull the rug out from under him. It's the whole "uniter" thing. Unfortunately, the Dims don't seem to want to be united.

[Jane]

Thanks TSk9. I am unaware of how Spymaster Larry responds, because once I heave my vaseline grenade into his place I never return to view the carnage.

Boy he always emailed me his replies. He must not like you OT!

[jerry]

Charlie,
Hahaha, that was a great cartoon...

Woof!

[Alcibiades]

Is Clarice on tonight?

Or are they waiting until the verdict is in?

[PeterUK]

Clarice,

"befitzed are worthy of consideration for inclusion in any new lexicon."

Befitzed,bothered and bewildered.

[clarice]

I was locked out for several hours this afternoon, alci, but I'm BACK!!!!

[clarice]

PUK, I knew you'd pick up on that..I like it..Maybe for the comic opera about the case.

[kate]

The left doesn't like renditions, so therefore blowing cover is acceptable. What our little LA Times reporters want to do is provide enough info that the little EURO magistrates can identify these guys and the Euros can have their show trial.

The left wants terrorism fought as a law and order issue, just like the first World Trade bombing. That tactic was so effective that the glorious World Trade Towers stand as a proud testimonial to the success of this, er, never mind.

[Other Tom]

TSk9, every so often I see an e-mail from the Spymaster in my inbox. I always delete without opening. Sooner or later he'll realize this.

[owl]

Yep. Also Malkin likes to do a little rug pulling herself.

[Sue]

Outing a CIA agent? You want outing a CIA agent?

This is one of those 'good' leaks Fitzgerald spoke of. These agents were doing bad things, not protecting us, single handedly, no less, from Iran's nukes, like super-duper Val was.

[Alcibiades]

Speaking of renditions, did you know that Richard Clarke outed Gore on the fact that it was his enthusiastic support for renditions that decided Clinton to go through with the policy.

Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (Against All Enemies pp. 143-144) [The cite is on wikipedia.]

One wonders, in passing, in what way Gore slighted Clarke in order for him to get him back publicly, as it were.

Or perhaps he was merely amused at St. Gore's clay feet. And wanted to let others in on the joke.

[Jane]

I read that a few days ago Alcibiades. It didn't surprise me in the least. Tell it to a liberal and you will get complete silence, which works well if you want them to shut up.

[MayBee]

TSk9, every so often I see an e-mail from the Spymaster in my inbox. I always delete without opening. Sooner or later he'll realize this.

Yeah, comments from his blog must be emailed to him, so he emails a response. Then he has a spam blocker so you have to answer a questionaire to respond in email. Which left me in the somewhat ridiculous situation of writing on his blog my response to his emails.

Last I heard, though, he was going to ask some friends about the whole Feb 12/Feb 13 thing.

[topsecretk9]

OtherTom

No---Larry is soo courageous - he puts spam block on return emails - that way he can email you all he wants but he gets to remain in his echo chamber of BS.

[PeterUK]

This will end in tears,it reeks of "The Eagle Has Landed"

"Col. Max Radl: [reading mission orders from Hitler] "Herr Oberst Radl is acting under my direct and personal orders in a matter of the utmost importance to the Reich. All personnel, military and civil, without distinction of rank, will assist him in any way that Oberst Radl sees fit to demand... Adolf Hitler."
Heinrich Himmler: So you see... Radl. Under the terms of that document, even I find myself under your personal command! "

The scene where Himmler takes back the authorisation document as if none of the events had happened.I hope Fitz has chosen which order of monks he will join.

[ghostcat]

Clarice -

Whatever happened to Cline in closing?

[Sue]

The 1st time I went to Scary's, I went there because of the Jayna Davis book. Our local radio talk show host had her on and I was curious about the book and did a search. I noticed Larry Johnson's ringing endorsement and having seen him on television discussing middle east policy as an expert, I went there and asked nicely, as I'm want to do ::grin::, if he no longer felt the ME was behind OKC. I was a little taken aback when I received 2 emails from him, back to back, spewing hatred at me, calling me vile names and questioning my reading comprehension. My posts were deleted on his blog and I was banned. For asking him that question. I asked Mac Ranger what he knew about Scary, was told he was a has-been analyst at the CIA and went about my merry way of making his life a momentary hell. I grew bored with it, quite frankly. He is an easy mark. I saved the emails, though. For the fun of it and to send to MSM when they decide to bring him out of mothballs again.

[Rick Ballard]

Alcibiades,

Was it published prior to the narrative shift? Had Kerry decided he was 'against' it or was he still in the 'for' it stage?

Watching the Dems swap narratives reminds me of the Stalinist Dalton Trumbo who published his antiwar paean Johnny Got His Gun during the Malenkov/Ribbentropf pact only to cancel its publication and recall all copies when Herr Hitler decided he'd like to see Moscow (as proprietor).

They never change and they haven't learned a new trick in decades. It's wonderously entertaining to see Mrs. Clinton being rejected by Hollywood due to lack of revolutionary fervor.

[PeterUK]

Mr Ballard,
The ordure has not yet struck the rotating air agitator,read "The Operator" or which ever title it has in the States,the Clintons have met their match.

[clarice]

ghostcat, I don't know. Perhaps the announcement of Cline was just a feint.

[ghostcat]

clarice -

That was my guess, too, but I wonder to what end?

[Semanticleo]

"How about: they wanted a full overstep, for appeal purposes?"

It's been the strategy from the beginning.

If a lawyer knows how much money he can get from you, he will find a way to use it up.

[Barney Frank]

--If a lawyer knows how much money he can get from you, he will find a way to use it up.--

That's not true. There are a lot of crummy and greedy lawyers, but there are many concientious ones also.
Most that I have had have gone out of their way to save me money where they could.

[clarice]

I have no idea ghostcar. All lawyers have their own styles and saying it would be Cline might have thrown the prosecution off. It's also possible the mock jury preferred Wells. Who knows?

[Jane]

You know Semantic I have a theory that people attract the lawyers they deserve.

[ghostcat]

clarice -

Woodward.

[Semanticleo]

"I have a theory......"

Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

[Curly Smith]

Funny how Fitz in his press conference (Accused Libby of being the first to leak)and in his filings with the court (Accused Libby of leaking classified information) and in his closing argument (Accused Libby of reading the DOJ guidelines) FAILED to following DOJ guidelines.

But then when he has to explain why he did such a shoddy job of questioning journalists, he wants to hide behind the DOJ guidelines. You can't have it both ways Fitz, you certainly had no problem violating those guidelines when it suited you.

Posted by: Patton | February 21, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I'm not sure if this helps but I have it on good authority that Fitz's I-pod has one song on continuous loop. It's the "one hit wonder" from the forgettable Fitztones entitled "Perjury Trap" and it has this refrain:

"They're my rules and I'll Fitz if I want to, Fitz if I want to"

I'm not sure what to make of that but in the Old Country being Fitz'd involved a goat, a mackerel, and a small monkey. You can Google for the details but it's not pretty.

It's used to be quite common to hear "Fitz You" in the rougher parts of town. It's often been said that "Fitzhugh" evolved from the expression but, as with all things Fitz related, the scholarship is seriously lacking.

The most remarkable Fitz clan routinely castrated the male progeny to prevent them from reproducing their intellectually deficient selves. In the old tongue they were called the "Fitz Gelded" but now, with translation errors and regional dialects, they are known as "Fitzgerald".

Hopefully that answers your questions.

[topsecretk9]

Ghostcat

What do you mean "Woodward"?

[centralcal]

tsk9: What do you mean "Woodward?"

I don't get it either. Maybe it's code only he and Clarice know. Clarice goes, "oh my gawd, Woodward!" And then one of them reveals it for the rest of us!

[davandbar]

Posted by: clarice

I have no idea, ghostcar. All lawyers have their own styles and saying it would be Cline might have thrown the prosecution off. It's also possible the mock jury preferred Wells. WHO KNOWS?...

...WOODWARD KNOWS! hahaha

[MayBee]

It's the new rosebud.

[ghostcat]

Woodward's gonna do a book ... or at least a lengthy chapter ... on Fitzfarce. How could he resist? He's the ultimate DC storyteller and this is a very marketable story, regardless of verdict.

[centralcal]

ghostcat: it would make a great book, especially if he interviews Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, etc., etc.

[Jane]

It's a book that Tom and Clarice should write.

[Alcibiades]

it would make a great book, especially if he interviews Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, etc., etc.

It would make a great book - only if he spills the beans on NBC.

[topsecretk9]

BUT GHOST!!! What does that have to do with Clines?

[ghostcat]

Alcibiades -

Necessary, but not sufficient. Fitzfarce is a target-rich environment.

[centralcal]

Alcibiatdes: that is what I meant.

[topsecretk9]

Wait, wait...we will have to WAIT for Woodward...is that it?

[Other Tom]

If there's one thing--and in fact there are many--Cleo has shown us clearly, it's that she doesn't know dick about lawyers or lawyering.

[ghostcat]

Tops -

I was (semi)facetiously suggesting that The Raporter is hawkishly watching everything that moves in this case. And it's personal, in more ways than one. If he doesn't know already why Cline faded, he will.

[topsecretk9]

Thanks Ghost -- it took a while, but finally I got it.
---

MAN...if you haven't already read the KC Johnson interview link at instaHEH...you should. Substitute Fitzgerald for Nifong and FDL-EW etc. for Group of 88 and leave the media the way just they way he has it and you've got Libby case to a tee.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inprint/contentview.asp?c=190716

[ghostcat]

Who plays the, er, dancer?

[ghostcat]

Joe III ?

[ghostcat]

Joe IV. Unintentional insults are unforgiveable.

[JJ]

Should I really believe that JM directed this reply to the comment!?:

Please don't make personal insults on TalkLeft (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:20:39 AM EST

to Larry Johnson or to me. They are not allowed, see the comment rules. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you would delete your comment and repost it without the insult, since I have no ability to edit it.

I respect Larry Johnson.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

Sigh. If only she could be harnessed and turned to the Forces of Good.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question.

[topsecretk9]

Good question...either Joe "National Command Authority but really Low-Level" Wilson, Victoria Flame or Valerie Montreal.

[Jane]

By the way, you still haven't answered the question.

He's too busy wondering why he always hires bad lawyers.

[SunnyDay]

someone wanted the docs from the Plame/Wilson civil case

http://members.cox.net/liinda/Plame_cheneyMTDismiss.htm

http://members.cox.net/liinda/Plame_Libby2.htm

[clarice]

Thanks, SD.

[ghostcat]

clarice -

Anyone we know in court during jury instructions?

[Ralph L.]

How much do lawyers study what their jurors say after the trial, or do they let the jury consultants read those entrails?

[Ralph L.]

How much do lawyers study what their jurors say after the trial, or do they let the jury consultants read those entrails?

[clarice]

No one I know.

[Jane]

Well if you can find out what they say, you pay attention. But you usually can't find out.

Someone told me yesterday that it is now ILLEGAL to talk to jurors in MA after a trial.

That's the first time I've heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[windansea]

Rich,
Breathe into the paper bag.
FDL and Dana Milbank are not worth getting light headed about.

Rich is so very concerned :)

[TimS]

Clarice,

if the civil suit is tossed, you are absolutely correct.

But if not, then it would be better for the Administration if the suit is not brought until the administration is over so they won't be hampered by it for the next 2minus years.

That just my thought. Clinton got all cluttered up with his legal problems. Let us not wish the same on Cheney, Rove, Libby and the whole Bush Cabinet with some crazy civil suit.

... but again, if it is a slam dump toss out of the suit, you are correct.

[SunnyDay]

A friend of mine, a PhD in psych, did some jury consulting for a while. He really enjoyed it. I would think, with all the stops pulled out, they would have someone gauging the jury's reactions all through the trial, not just at the beginning, and giving the defense team feedback.

As far as Jeffress looking sheepish about the sidebar during Fitz closing remarks - maybe he wanted to give the jury the impression that he felt bad about it.

[Ralph L.]

They should have stared at Fitz with their jaws hanging open.

[topsecretk9]

OH for Pete's sakes...I am NOT, for the life of me, understanding why everyone is A - taking Rich slash EW's slash Hamsher penchant for hyperbole (think back about Hamsher's assuredness that the "kiss float" was making inroads and scaring Rape Gurney Joe -- for a moment people!) their MO is to distribute disenchantment - why I do not buy into it?

and B - buying into this crap that Wells - a high priced attorney who calculates his every move --Libby, while being a big case IS NOT WELL"S only big case - he's been on bigger and does not loose it on the Libby case - trial attorneys are actors and they do not "emote" unless they want to - and whether or not he emoted to the degree EW thinks is too much (Merrit happened to think it was so powerful he must have won over a juror or two!) it's on purpose and IMO NOT anywhere to what EW is incapable of saying.

IOW - Well's did not LOOSE it on this case and the eft has a hard time remembering he moved Clinton person Espy INTO HIS HOME for a few months - became Espy - prolly shed a tear in summation for Espy and Espy WAS ACQUITTED ON al some 30 accounts.

EW has become the monster she professes to hate - incapable of reporting the truth.

[topsecretk9]

IMO NOT anywhere to what EW is **capable** of saying.

because, she is biased to a 100,000,00th degree.

[JM Hanes]

Aw, tops, you wouldn't want the fellow to flunk thread-jacking when he was clearly working so hard would ya?

[topsecretk9]

JOM redmeat Via the Misstress of razor blade dining

There is a tendency in the blogosphere to camp out in the weeds when covering the CIA leak case, and we forget that most people's eyes glaze over when we start talking about what CIA briefer was copied on what memo on which day. With the close of the Libby trial, I'd like to step back and start trying to define what the important, overarching narratives to emerge from the case actually are:

1. The administration lied us into war and tried to abuse its power to punish the whistleblower who told the American public the truth.

2. Scooter is the firewall to Shooter.

3. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and other members of the administration conspired to keep federal investigators from uncovering their crimes.

4. The media was complicit in spreading administration propaganda rather than doing investigative journalism, and are now helping to set the table for a pardon.

5. The journalistic standards that have been exposed in the case (witness Tim Russert, Judy Miller, Andrea Mitchell, Robert Novak and others) are reprehensible, and have undermined the public trust in the media.

6. The degree to which this story about the lies that lead to war has been ignored by the media (relative to the feeding frenzy over a Clinton blowjob) left a huge opening that the blogs have filled.

What am I missing?

Update: Quote of the day, Zhiv from the comments: "I think we’re all going to look back quite fondly at the PoliticsTV clips with emptywheel’s hair blowing all over her face, like she was on an early bad date in her relationship with destiny."

Hamsher. Hyperbole (her only talent) etc. etc.

[Ralph L.]

"The administration lied us into war "
and everything else can be deduced from that axiom.

[JM Hanes]

tops,

I saw that too and had to laugh when she claimed to be defining "what the important, overarching narratives to emerge from the case actually are" -- and then proceeded to reiterate the assumptions she started out with.

When she asked "What am I missing," I had to put my hands in the air and step away from the keyboard....

[Syl]

When she asked "What am I missing," I had to put my hands in the air and step away from the keyboard....

LOL

There just are no words.

[Jane]

Good morning! Is today the day?

[Ralph L]

Jane, I think so.

[Jane]

WEll then please let it be early because I have appointments in the afternoon!

[Semanticleo]

"The administration lied us into war "
and everything else can be deduced from that axiom."

At last. He finally says something important;
albeit, unintentionally.

[Cecil Turner]

"The administration lied us into war "

Yeah, tell it! And they hid the intelligence estimate the CIA drafted that so obviously didn't support the WMD meme:

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

And then they had the chutzpah to pretend the intelligence actually supported them! Scoundrels.

[Semanticleo]

"Scoundrels."

You make them sound positively benign.

[boris]

Compared to your ilk they're saintly.

Cue Replay: One side commits to the war ...

• The other side goes along and votes in favor because the country is angry and voting against is political suicide;
  
• Then the other side balks as the anger subsides;
  
• Then the other side wages an anti war campaign;
  
• Then the other side lies about being misled to cover for their insincerity from the beginning;
  
• Then the other side wages a leak campaign of secrets and false "secrets" to further influence the public against the war;
  
• Then the other side engages prosecution against the administration for responding to false leaks;

But don't call them unpatriotic.
Don't call them traitors.
Don't call them hypocrites.
Call them craven.

[boris]

Bottom line is that there is a certain amount of risk in hiring a hit man to take out your enemies then refusing to pay because you changed your mind about wanting them dead.