Powered by TypePad

« Closing Arguments | Main | Thank You, Clarice »

February 20, 2007

Comments

Jane

In the last five minutes he provided work for the appeals courts (should Libby be convicted) for a year or so

Well I read thru FDL quickly and can't figure out the error. Can I at least have a hint?

MayBee

I remain optimistic, but that Fitz stuff at the end (dead kid on a beach???) and getting the truth about lying us into war-- plus I believe an assertion that Plame worked at CPD-- seems like it is inviting the jury to convict Scooter for the war and all the people that might have been tortured.

I'm with JMH, he went for nullification, trying to nullify the actual crime Libby was on trial for.

clarice

He made assertions of fact not in evidence. Jane and brought in the :big case: which the judge had excluded.

Here's York's sum up:
"The key to it all is the issue of reasonable doubt. Fitzgerald has to convince all the jurors that Libby is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on at least one of the charges. The defense has to meet a lesser standard; all it must do is convince jurors that there exist reasonable doubts about the prosecutor’s case. Given the series of memory lapses, changed testimony, and conflicting stories that have been presented in the courtroom, that is something the jury has had plenty of chances to believe."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzNkNWNmNGJmNThkMTNlYjhlODM2NWQ2ZWNkMTJiMDU=>Reasonable doubt

Ralph L

Thanks.
Has anyone checked Gonzalez's package closely enough to guess if he will dismiss Fitz in the event of a hung jury?

Sara (Squiggler

Jane: I think it is Fitz in rebuttal. I only read Jeralyn's account, not FDL, with Fitz coming to the mike yelling "Madness" in referring to the defense's closing argument. Apparently he was going ballistic at the end and it required a sidebar and an admonition from the judge.

MayBee

Jane- here's one part:
One thing that's really important, Schmall told him, this is a big deal, every intell service, whether innocent or not, they could arrest, torture, kill them. If you're sitting ont eh beach as a 21 year old, and you say, what you did, that can get people killed. If someone brought to your attention, you could get some people killed, that better be important, certainly NSA to VP in time of war.

clarice

He can fire him, assign other DOJ persons to review the record and recommend whether further proceedings are warranted, and my guess is they will decide to waste no more resources on this dead duck.

Rick Ballard

Jane,

I'm sorry, Tom may have disabused me of the notion that Walton's cure of Fitz's going over the top was an appellate issue. Dragging in the statement concerning Libby's knowledge of the difficulty that the DoJ puts itself through in going after pseudojournalists and Fitz's refence to potential harm from revelation of a covert agent's identity seemed to be sufficient to me but IANAL.

Walton did not go nearly far enough in my view.

Ralph L

Damn it. I diddled too long and Sara and OT shot *my* wad.

Syl

Jane

Well I read thru FDL quickly and can't figure out the error. Can I at least have a hint?

Mainly bringing up possible harm due to outing a covert agent, ie, murder of anyone she worked with.

That stuff wasn't to be in the trial at all.

Also fitz used the matter of the AG guidelines for a purpose outisde the context they were allowed into the trial.

And fitz spit. (okay, I made that part up)

MayBee

How did this get into the trial:
Fitz: Rove, he had a conversation with someone else's wife.
Defendant had a better memory of Roves conversation with Novak, than Rove did.

miriam

Whew! I can just imagine how Libby feels right about now. ...Well maybe not.

How awful to have to wait yet more days to find out if Fitznutz made an impression on the jury.

Wish I could have been in the courtroom to watch the jury during the prosecution close.

This has been quite an education for me the last few weeks.

Clarice, I have been following you and Tom since last year on the Libby persecution.

Thank you both for what you bring to the table.

And to all of you here, thanks for the great posts.

hit and run

OK, a few days ago, Clarice posted this:

Fitz makes his closing
Wells makes his
Fitz gets a short rebuttal
He's known to do stunts at this point

A prize to the JOMer who figures out the stunt this time.

I would like to resubmit my entry. From here

Fitz gets up and makes all sorts of concessions that yes, Libby was busy (working for CHENEY!!!!) that he had a lot on his plate (carrying out the wishes of CHENEY!!!!!) that a lot of it was critical to national security (WMD, where are the WMD??!!!?!!!! Iraq invasion!!!) that he was deeply loyal (to CHENEY!!!!) and cared deeply about this administration (Bushitlerburon!!!!!)....and then say that lying about this was just another something he was doing out of loyalty (to CHENEY and Booooosh!!!!!!). He probably thought he was doing the right thing to protect himself, his boss and this administration -- but he got sand in my face and I am a special, special prosecutor dammit!!!

BDS (and CDS) will be his last gasp.

hit and run

And this:

"You're damn right I ordered the code red on Libby. He's standing in between me and the justice that is due to Cheney and Bush for their illegal invasion of Iraq using faulty intelligence by lying to the Congress and to the American people and for outing the single most important CIA operative buffeting us against the threat of the entire Middle East. Was it a thorough investigation? No. Was it a clean investigation? No. My appearace while grotesque....etc.etc.etc.at parties....need me on that wall....want me on that wall....etc.etc.etc."
clarice

Thanks, Miriam.

topsecretkk9

Jane...at the very end of the rabid dog routine

DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS. If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don't you think FBI desesrves straight answers. When you go in taht jury room, you commonsense will tell you hthat he made a gamble. He threw sand sin the eyes o fthe FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty you give truth back.

5:16

Scooter, looking impassive at this point.

Walton: Sometimes during course of argument. Lawyers say things they don't mean to say. I want to say a couple of things to make sure. Reference to AG guidelines, those were admitted for a limited purpose, so you could assess whether Fitz' interaction was consistent with those guidelines. Argument that Libby would have been aware of those guidelines. There is no evidence before you [shit–Fitz could have used the fact taht Libby refused to sign waiver!]

Walton THe truth of whether someone could be harmed based on disclosure of covert identity should not be dismiseed. What is relevant here is what, if any impact, things had on his state of mind.

The meaning of the last para is opposite (EW was typing fast)

MayBee

Fitz:If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it

I don't believe it has been brought up in the trial that she did work at CPD.

The second sentence is funny though, because that leads right to Armitage.

centralcal

Yeah, H&R, I think you pretty well guessed the "stunt" pretty accurately (either one!).

lurker

If Libby is convicted and decides to appeal, will Fitz continue to represent this case during the appeals process?

p.lukasiak

acquit on 2 & 3 (false statements), convict on 1, 4, and 5 (obstruction/perjury).

Fitz and company really made no effort to convince the jury that Libby's initial statements to the FBI were deliberately misleading, and the evidence regarding those statements (based on the notes of one FBI agent) is less than conclusive.

But the GJ transcripts are damning....

hit and run

Was MaidMarion at the courthouse today?

Please pretty pretty pretty please tell me she was.

Jane

Walton did not go nearly far enough in my view.

WOW. That doesn't sound like a mistake in a closing, it sounds sort of deliberate. Was there an objection? And was Walton's entire instruction that sometimes people say things they don't mean?

Is it possible Fitz and Walton are having an affair?

MayBee

Reference to AG guidelines, those were admitted for a limited purpose, so you could assess whether Fitz' interaction was consistent with those guidelines.

Shouldn't this get Fitz in a little bit of trouble? He used those guidelines in a way that they were not admitted for.

dorf

How was Fitz allowed to argue that the VPs office had targeted Wilson?

Rick Ballard

"But the GJ transcripts are damning...."

They sure as hell are. I've never heard of a prosecutor wasting so much time on perjury traps in my life.

boris

the GJ transcripts are exculpatory ....

They prove Libby had no rational motive to lie.

MayBee

Seriously, how can Fitzgerald be allowed to argue that Libby's memory of Rove's conversation with Novak was better than Rove's memory.
When in this trial was Rove's memory of that conversation addressed?

sbw

On the basis of no expertise, no law degree, no courtroom experience, and a full day job that keeps me away from here -- I predict not guilty on all counts, hedging my bet to say that if he is found guilty on any one, acquital on appeal.

Sue

It seems to me that Fitz is worried about his case. Otherwise, why resort to theatrics that were not necessary?

I also liked the part where Russert could be dead and we could still have a conviction but just in case you aren't buying that so what if he didn't remember something? ::grin:: Someone upthread made the point better than I am, but it was something I hope the jurors picked up.

Charlie (Colorado)

Damn it. I diddled too long and Sara and OT shot *my* wad.

I saw that movie once at a bachelor party.

dorf

Hung up. Majority for conviction. Plea to disorderly conduct and a fine in two years.

clarice

I can't understand, sbw, how the chase for filthy lucre could keep you from this place.

MayBee

I predict a flurry of filings from the Libby team tonight.

p.lukasiak

Shouldn't this get Fitz in a little bit of trouble? He used those guidelines in a way that they were not admitted for.

Team Libby made numerous statements that were completely unsupported/contrary to the facts in their summations as well. (for instance, there was no testimony that suggested that the call to Russert possibly took place on July 12, but Team Libby said it could have taken place on that date.)

The reason why Walton gave those instructions at the end is that the prosecution has the opportunity to address these kinds of statements in their rebuttal. The defense doesn't get that chance---that is why there was a sidebar

(i.e. if TeamLibby had another shot, they could have pointed out that there was no evidence indicating that Libby was aware of the guidelines for supoenaing members of the press... because Team Libby didn't have that chance, the judge had to make that point.)

Ralph L.

I think Jeopardy just had an incorrect clue. Was Kissinger Nixon's Sec of State?

clarice

Charlie's back on--break out the booze.
Sue, I agree..The jury can smell the flopsweat.

owl

Issy just said that Fitz really laid it out that Libby was protecting Cheney. The other reporter agreed that it was all about Cheney.

Charlie (Colorado)

Aha, I can post from *home* this time.

dorf

Kiss was national security advisor and later sec of state.

Shel

Rick Ballard,

Ah, yes...Javert. And perhaps it could end the same way for Fitz--though I am not suggesting he jump into the river (I would NEVer ::wink::), but a nice swirly would do.

Syl

Fitz? What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play?

Role in what?!?!? By the time you were scratching your head, you already knew Armitage leaked!!

Unless you believe, which I don't think you do, and have PROOF that Libby told Miller who told Novak AND that Armitage is covering for Miller what's your damn point?!?!?

Anything Libby confirmed to Cooper happened AFTER Libby knew Novak had an article. So what's your damned point?!?!?


Ralph L

I thought he became FORD's Sec of State.

Patrick R. Sullivan

The Defense seems to have anticipated Fitzgerald would pull a fast one. From their 'pre-buttal':

--------quote------
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.1 addresses the order of closing arguments. The Advisory Committee Note states: "The rule is drafted in the view that the fair and effective administration of justice is best served if the defendant knows the arguments actually made by the prosecution in behalf of conviction before the defendant is faced with the decision whether to reply and what to reply." ....

"[a]s a general rule, Government counsel should not be allowed to develop new arguments on rebuttal, but should be restricted to answering the arguments put forth by defense counsel." ....

"[T]he primary purpose of the rule announced in Moore is to protect defense counsel from surprise." ....

Courts have found government rebuttal arguments improper when they have presented new theories or interpretations of the evidence. ... the court found improper introduction of a new chart column, which reorganized information already in the record, because "[t]he prosecutor took a step beyond the existing evidence to create a new line of argument." ...calculations introduced for the first time in rebuttal effectively confronted the defendant with "a new theory (albeit based on record evidence) at almost literally the last minute of a long trial," and thus "[f]airness would dictate that a copy be furnished to [defendant] well enough in advance of its use to permit a reply."
---------endquote-------

Alcibiades

So what's your damned point?!?!?

The point is to throw sand in your eye to distract you, so you won't see clearly until you get it out.

Alcibiades

So what's your damned point?!?!?

The point is to throw sand in your eye to distract you, so you won't see clearly until you get it out.

Rick Ballard

Sue,

I'd bet that the hysterics are a trademark of Fitz. If you don't have facts argue law, if you don't have law argue facts, if you don't have either, pound the table.

His witness prep was ample demonstration of his quality as a prosecutor. If he's a good one, we can stop building prisons.

dorf

Kiss sec of state 73-77

Barney Frank

--I thought he became FORD's Sec of State.--

Put it in the form of a question please, Ralph.

Charlie (Colorado)

Was Kissinger Nixon's Sec of State?

Ralph, yes, and then Ford's after the resignation. As I recall he had both the SECSTATE and National Security Advisor portfolio for a while there.

clarice

About his Cheney histrionics--How can he argue Libby feared firing if he told the truth and at the same time argue that Libby was just carrying out evil Cheney's orders?

It's clear to me that he had no case and never properly prepared for the onw=e he presented. His sope was to play on the prejudices of the jury as he worked his "magic" on Libby and Cheney in cross..Must have really knocked him for a loop when the defense jujitsued him and closed early.

clarice

*******It's clear to me that he had no case and never properly prepared for the one he presented. His Hope ***********

M. Simon

Raising Caine I see.

hit and run

Rick:
I'd bet that the hysterics are a trademark of Fitz. If you don't have facts argue law, if you don't have law argue facts, if you don't have either, pound the table.

Did Wells' closing lines help to set Fitz on fire?

This is a man who has a wife kid. He's been under my protection for the last month. Just give him back. Give him back to me, give him back.

[Wells gets all choked up, crying.]

ghostcat

It comes down to whether Woodward and Novak sank Fitz's version of the backstory in the eyes of the jury. If they did, Fitz lashed himself to the whale with his closing harpoon.

Charlie (Colorado)

Raising Caine I see.

I wish I'd said that.

Larry

Was Kissinger Nixon's Sec of State? Posted by: Ralph L. | February 20, 2007 at 04:22 PM
Yes, Ralph. NSA first, then SOS.

Rick Ballard

Maybe we should start a Free Maguire movement?

That or break open the gun safe and do a little skeet shooting.

willem

If Barney Fife had ever gone to law school, Don Knotts would have played a perfect Fitz.

clarice

AP story (Sniffen with Apuzzo contributing)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2007/feb/20/022002242.html>Closing

Ralph L

Thank you all. I looked it up. I was wrong. I just remember the Post's cartoon of Ford making Henry Sec. of everything. Scowcroft succeeded as NSA in 1975, with McFarlane as his military aide.
But Jeopardy has made a mistake about Henry Calvert not being Lord Baltimore. You can't trust anyone these days.

Alcibiades

Must have really knocked him for a loop when the defense jujitsued him and closed early.

Which makes their move at that point more understandable.

Imagine, he wanted to hector VP Cheney, in person, with this Joe Wilson confabulation for a few hours.

Patrick

Fitz knew his jury. DC folks, likely hostile to the Bush administration. Not too surprising that he would throw in some BDS St. Joe stuff.

topsecretkk9

Again, I can't really tell if Fitz was theatrical in other instances (I only recall chicken with his head cut off - flipping through a book feverishly after a defense direct) but, if he was suddenly over the top the jury might see this for what it is - over compensating for weaknesses -- which is how it reads.

Syl

There's a huge hole in fitz' argument. If Cheney and Libby conspired to get the wifey 'out' where's the proof that Libby got her 'out'.

Miller, possibly.
Ari, hush hush
Cooper, she was already 'out' by that time, and Libby knew it.

That's some huge compaign to 'out a covert agent in retaliation against a noble whistleblower'?

Barney Frank

--DC folks, likely hostile to the Bush administration. Not too surprising that he would throw in some BDS St. Joe stuff.--

Bit of a gamble though that all twelve are loony left I would think, even in DC.
Doubt he would have risked it if he thought his case was stronger.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I predict a flurry of filings from the Libby team tonight.'

So do I. And they're going to be arguing that if Fitz had new theories and interpretations he should have presented them after the Defense rested. Because any rebuttal evidence would be open to cross examination.

Instead Fitz snuck all this novel stuff about what Judy's notes really meant without her on the stand.

If he wanted to show how the talking points really came into being he could have recalled Cathie Martin, or even Dick Cheney and asked, 'isn't this just a rephrasing of the comments on the marked up Wilson Op-ed?'

If he wanted to contrast Libby's GJ testimony about the Rove-Novak conversation, he could have called Rove.

Fitz is a deeply unethical man.

hit and run

That or break open the gun safe and do a little skeet shooting.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2007 at 04:37 PM

I'm waaaaay too sober to be handling guns.

Sue

I think it could go either way. ::grin:: What an astute statement! There is enough evidence to convict, if the jury is so inclined and there is enough reasonable doubt they could acquit, if so inclined. With it being a slightly less than BDS makeup, but slightly more BDS makeup than you would find in other parts of the country, I can't see an acquittal. At least on all of the charges. The Cooper counts may be acquitted in order to get the Russert counts. Even though they aren't supposed to compromise their votes, they do it all the time.

clarice

What he telegraphed Armitage to tell Woodward? Woodward told Pincus who didn't hear it? He twisted Flesicher's arm to tell people who apparently never heard it?

On the otherhand the dynamic duo is talking to everyone in the world.

Jane

Fitzgerald noted that eight witnesses, including an undersecretary of state, two CIA officials, two top Cheney aides, two reporters and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said they discussed Wilson's wife with Libby between June 11 and July 10 or 11 when Libby talked to Russert.

This seems to me to be the most damning part of Fitz closing.

ghostcat

BDS or not, if the jurors believe Woodward and Novak, they're going to conclude that Fitz got the wrong guy. In that event, they're more likely to direct their anger at Fitz than Libby.

hit and run

--DC folks, likely hostile to the Bush administration. Not too surprising that he would throw in some BDS St. Joe stuff.--

Bit of a gamble though that all twelve are loony left I would think, even in DC.

I was going to try and come up with a few speculations on why Fitz was going nucking futz.

One of them was that through the voir doire or through readin jurors through the trial - he thought he had one or two or ? juror who were the strongest personalities and BDSers. I didn't convince myself, but...

Feedup

My guess if they don't acquit across the board, it will be a hung jury.

Someone on the jury has to put themselves into Libby's spot & think this is all BS....

clarice

Personally I think he went nutz because he put on such a bad case and because his moment in the sun was to be the Cheney and Libby cross exams which the defense deprived him of.

Sara (Squiggler

AP: Wells was followed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, speaking a mile-a-minute and lacing his rebuttal to the defense with sarcasm. Fitzgerald said that, by lying, Libby "threw sand in the eyes of the FBI investigators and the grand jury" trying to find out if someone leaked classified information that could endanger lives.

If my jury experience is any indicator, jurors do not like a prosecutor "lacing his rebuttal to the defense with sarcasm."

Fitz can't come up with something better than the sand in the eys thing again? Gag!

Jane

I'd like to hear what Maid Marion's impressions are. I'm concerned that we are engaged in wishful thinking.

Other Tom

Kissinger took over as SOS after William Rogers was so disgraced by not even being told about Nixon's trip to China until an hour before he departed. He was a good man who didn't deserve that kind of treatment, and that made it very clear to him that Kissinger had Nixon's trust and confidence in a way that he didn't.

When a guy goes cuckoo like that in rebuttal, there really isn't much you can do if you have a passive judge. You can object, of course, and I assume Wells did so and that's why they had the sidebar. But the received wisdom is that the jurors resent it if you go to the well more than a very few times. What Fitz knows full well is that it would take something truly horrific for any judge to declare a mistrial after this long a proceeding, and Walton is about the last guy in the world who's going to do it. It's just, welcome to the big leagues.

MayBee

Wishful thinking? I think Fitzgerald's rebuttal sounds quite damaging.

I just have a huge problem with the way he did it.
I can't believe Fitzgerald was allowed to bring up Rove's testimony, which is available only to him.

clarice

I always look forward to Maid Marion's reports, and hope she files one tonight.

topsecretkk9

Ghost

--they're going to conclude that Fitz got the wrong guy. In that event, they're more likely to direct their anger at Fitz than Libby.--

I think so too - especially given his Sybil-Like "bad to out a CIA agent" crap in the end. The jury has been routinely admonished not to consider this and at the same time have listened to Amritage's "how about that [ ]" tape - it's pretty disingenuous of Fitz to suggest Libby put the 21 y.o. on the beach in danger (and weird too) and not give a wit about Armitage.

p.lukasiak

It's clear to me that he had no case and never properly prepared for the onw=e he presented. His sope was to play on the prejudices of the jury as he worked his "magic" on Libby and Cheney in cross..Must have really knocked him for a loop when the defense jujitsued him and closed early.

Clarice, you can't really be a lawyer....

while Fitz couldn't call Libby, he could have called Cheney as a rebuttal witness had Cheney been necessary to his case----and probably would have been allowed to treat Cheney as a "hostile witness" given the fact that the defense had indicated that Cheney would be a defense witness AND had jurors disqualified based on the possibility of anti-Cheney bias.

Unlike your hero, Ken Starr, Fitz doesn't play games --- its pretty clear that Wells and Fitz sat down and negotiated the end of the trial, and that Wells had declared defeat. Its obvious Wells told Libby "you've lost -- and you're paying me by the hour, and the longer this goes on the worse its gonna be for you".

Like I said....conviction on counts 1, 4 and 5, and acquittal on 2 and 3....

MayBee

This seems to me to be the most damning part of Fitz closing.

I think so too, until I remember the quality of their actual testimony and memories.
But I don't know how the jury will weigh it all.

hit and run

Uh oh.

In my last post, the inkblot spam test was:

9 u i 1 t y

Spooky.

Alcibiades

Instead Fitz snuck all this novel stuff about what Judy's notes really meant without her on the stand.

If he wanted to show how the talking points really came into being he could have recalled Cathie Martin, or even Dick Cheney and asked, 'isn't this just a rephrasing of the comments on the marked up Wilson Op-ed?'

If he wanted to contrast Libby's GJ testimony about the Rove-Novak conversation, he could have called Rove.

Fitz is a deeply unethical man.

But now that Fitz has entered it on the recod, Walton at most will do nothing more than split the difference, or at worst will ignore the damage it has done, by telling himself that sometimes lawyers says things they didn't mean to say.

He doesn't have the balls to stand up to Fitz, because he is also trying hard to protect the government's case. And that "wouldn't be fair" to the government if he did anything more drastic.

tina

Once this trial is concluded and the jury renders its verdict, is there any chance at all that Fat Dim Russert will face any legal problems for filing the false affidavit? Or am I only wishfully thinking?

clarice

Reuters invents a new test in criminal case:
"THE MARKUP

Guilty Until Proven Liberal

Presumption of innocence? Burden of proof? Please. This is Reuters!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney will have a last chance to convince a jury he is not guilty of perjury on Tuesday as a trial that has exposed the inner workings of the White House draws to a close.

Maybe it's just as well the MSM's stuck on Anna Nicole. (h/t Allen T.) "

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg1NzQ5N2JjYzliMTcwM2VlNGVkNGVlN2I5OGE3NWY=>Prove you're innocent


topsecretkk9

--If my jury experience is any indicator, jurors do not like a prosecutor "lacing his rebuttal to the defense with sarcasm."--

Sara

I thought the same thing. I hope this turned them off - it sounds juvenile, demeaning and frankly low class. Much like the bratty FBI agent.

Sue

its pretty clear that Wells and Fitz sat down and negotiated the end of the trial, and that Wells had declared defeat.

It's pretty clear you aren't a lawyer.

Other Tom

Lukasiak, on what basis do you assert that Ken Starr is Clarice's "hero?" And what kind of low-class chump says shit like, "you can't really be a lawyer?" Can you make a point without insisting on looking like a scumbag?

Holly

Could someone refresh my memory. Why wasn't this case tried in a more neutral venue? Was there ever a motion to change venue?

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Well, waltoon will certainly leave his own stains on "jurice-prudence" ... Must be a sister of his, on da' law.

First, he asks jurors to submit questions. (Which I happen to like.) But heck I'm not a lawyer. Why just cite da' law, when ya get extras on yer plate, huh?

IMUS CALLING RUSSERT TUBBY. Seems we've got Sherlock on the radio, just in case.

"Madame du Greenspan." Fading onto the Invisible hand, she's married to, huh?

And, just in case you're not excited, t'marra will give WELLS "more time" to speak. Ain't been a rebuttal like this, before.

For future use: "REBUTTAL" Contains the word "BUTT." And, not just "but" anymore.

Sara (Squiggler

Jane, re: said they discussed

Discussed? From 10 to 30 second mentions, one first by telephone and then on the run between 2 15 minute meetings is hardly discussing. And all those discussers seem to have as bad, if not worse, memories than Libby.

Publius

Whether Libby is convicted or acquitted, I think Fitz got as much as he could hope for out of this trial when, in rebuttal, he claimed, "There is a cloud over the VP".

The MSM and Democratic Congress will take the vendetta from there. I suspect the NYT and WaPo will hammer on about improprieties in the OVP until Henry Waxman and Schummer demand an investigation of the OVP. Then it will just be a race to see who the Dem's can impeach before Jan. 20, 2009.

Rick Ballard

"Fitzgerald noted that eight witnesses, including an undersecretary of state, two CIA officials, two top Cheney aides, two reporters and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said they discussed Wilson's wife with Libby between June 11 and July 10 or 11 when Libby talked to Russert."

Jane,

That fits into a narrative for 2 and 4 but it doesn't provide much for 1, 3 and 5 (IMO). The breakdown on 2 and 4 is 'Impossible!!!' (Buffalo anyone?) followed by the stipulation concerning Eckenrode's testimony and the "lied to the judge" (unrebutted) concerning the purchase price Fitz paid for 'Impossible!!!'.

If I had bought the T-shirts I could get 'not guilty' on all five. If emptywhatever bought the T-shirts then 2 and 4 hang because I'd spit in her eye.

hit and run

So - at first I thought that Rove had spiked Fitz' water with crazy juice.

But now I am thinking that somehow an EW comenter donned a Fitz costume and did the close themselves.

Charlie (Colorado)

Unlike your hero, Ken Starr, Fitz doesn't play games --- its pretty clear that Wells and Fitz sat down and negotiated the end of the trial, and that Wells had declared defeat.

Can you say "disbarment", Luk?

p.lukasiak

Lukasiak, on what basis do you assert that Ken Starr is Clarice's "hero?" And what kind of low-class chump says shit like, "you can't really be a lawyer?" Can you make a point without insisting on looking like a scumbag?

re Clarice and Ken Starr...look at her previous postings.

as to Clarice really being a lawyer... no real lawyer would say the stupid stuff she does....unless they got their law degree from some mail order college with a Guatamalan mailing addresss...

Sue

OT,

::Yikes:: I hope you will ignore my post directly above yours. ::grin::

topsecretkk9

or Brazil.

Patton

Wells/Jeffries should open with this tomorrow:

As the judge said yesterday, 'Lawyers say things they don't mean to say' and he's right.
There not intentional lies, they are not meant to decieve and you certainly wouldn't indict Mr Fitzpatrick for his verbal diahrea
yesteday.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame