Powered by TypePad

« The Deep Breath Before The Icy Plunge | Main | From The Juror's Mouth... »

March 06, 2007

Comments

hit and run

New Toesnsing article:

Does the Libby Verdict Have Appeal
Making sense of legal nonsense

Walter

Tom,

Thanks for all your work on this case! As the skydiver without a parachute said, it's been a great ride except for that sudden stop at the end.

EH

I'm not so sure I'd pin my hopes on what Raw Story says.

Sue

I don't think hopes are being pinned on Raw Story. Fitzgerald said it is over. And with that, I can go over to the Wheel and gloat with my only gloat left. My only question is do I do it now or do I wait until the party is dying down over there?

uh_clem


...if the investigation is over, this if Fizzlemas.

Fitz's investigation is over, but he practically invited congress to pick up where he left off. If none of the 535 members ask him for additional details I'll be shocked.

Plus, there's the ongoing civil suit and it's inevitable discovery process. Not to mention the lengthy appeal.

So, it ain't quite over. I understand why you'd like it to be, but this is going to drag on for a while yet. Today was probably the climax in the drama, but this fire's going to smolder awhile before it goes out, even if it doesn't flame up again. (e.g. Marcy's giddy predictions about Fitz flipping Libby and going after Cheney)

John Primmer

Well, Fizzlemass it may be, but I don't think we can take great glee in the fact that Fitzgerald doesn't plan to preservere toward landing bigger fish. Libby's conviction is a huge blow. There should not have been a prosecution, and the prosecution should not have survived a motion for acquittal at the end of its case. The fact that there is a conviction in Plamegate when the FBI can't even get its phone calls returned in the NSA leak investigation should tell us something very, very scary about where we are as a society today.

arcanorum

"If none of the 535 members ask him for additional details I'll be shocked. "

Yes, I hope congress asks him 'when did you know that there was no underlying crime committed' and follows with 'why did you charge this man with process crimes in the absence of any underlying crime against justice department guidelines' and then concludes with 'why did you not recuse yourself when you had a two decade long grudge against Scooter Libby for representing Mark Rich.'

Fitz, what a pathetic fu@#up

uh_clem

New Toesnsing article:

Here's a bit of free advice: don't take legal counsel from a partisan operative. Try to find somebody with a disinterested view. I'm just saying...

Yes, there are some grounds for appeal - in fact, it often seemed like the entire defense strategy was to accumulate appeal points rather than put on a credible defense.

Sue

Nevermind. EW isn't there and those that are still think Fitz is planning on future indictments, but will wait until after Bush leaves office in order to avoid the pardon. ::shaking head:: How do you gloat when those you are gloating to are to f***ing ignorant to recognize it?

roanoke

Tom-

OMG Too funny-Fizzlemas.

I love the green and red.

Patton

Its sooo funny, FireDoglake is praising Fitz to the hilt for his great work in a case they consider to be about outing a covert agent, and Fitzs BIGGEST decisions in that case were to let the leakers go. Armitage and Fliescher both leaked, both got a walk.

Libby had a conflicting memory, but ZERO evidence or indictment for leaking a covert agent and he gets convicted of telling a different story then two journalists.

arcanorum

"Here's a bit of free advice: don't take legal counsel from a partisan operative."

worth every penny, thanks!

Sue

Hmmm...typo...schmypo...too instead of to.

uh_clem

I hope congress asks him 'when did you know that there was no underlying crime committed'

And he'll calmly respond that he's still not sure whether there was an underlying crime because of Libby's obstruction of justice. You do understand what that term means, don't you?

roanoke

It's a FizzleMESS.

Spin

Nice spin Tom. Only problem is that a jury just convicted the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, who also served as an assistant to the President of the United States, for perjury and obstruction of justice. Given the amount of time you spent over the past two years covering this case, I can hardly see how this was "Fizzlemas".

arcanorum

"Fitzs BIGGEST decisions in that case were to let the leakers go."

His biggest decision was to grab Miller and toss her in jail. Got an important precedent set that there is no journalistic privilege, and this has already paid off in another investigation (Balco case). Expect to see many more journo's going to jail in future years.

arcanorum

"Given the amount of time you spent over the past two years covering this case, I can hardly see how this was "Fizzlemas"."

It's fizzelmas because the world has moved on and while it has cost Libby dearly, it has cost the administration very little.

move along, little man.

MikeS

I must be so biased that I have lost my ability to properly reason. I know that I cannot remember any of the conversations that I had months ago with any degree of confidence. My own memory is much more akin to that of the witnesses in this case (better than Russert’s). I think I could compare the quality of my memory to the memory of Dennis Collins (the jurno-juror) who admitted that he couldn’t remember a vote take in deliberations a few days ago.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the substance of the Libby case. My understanding is that the prosecution claims that Libby’s memory was definitely accurate on particular dates. Specifically the claim is that Libby’s memory of two conversations that occurred several months previously was, beyond a reasonable doubt, accurate. Therefore any incorrect statements Libby made regarding those issues were deliberate lies.

I just can’t get myself to accept that.

arcanorum

"And he'll calmly respond that he's still not sure whether there was an underlying crime because of Libby's obstruction of justice. You do understand what that term means, don't you?"

hahaha, surely you are an imbecile. You do understand what that term means, don't you?

malcontent

Well, I'm glad we can all agree that justice has been served here, albeit only partially.

Libby should start displaying some of that oft-fabled conservative accountability and take his punishment like a man.

That's not the GOP way, though, is it? Blame everyone else for your crimes, deny responsiblity, feign ignorance, etc.

You people need to ask yourselves why it is you hate America so much. Traitors like Libby, Cheney, et al should be tried and hung, not celebrated.

arcanorum

"You people need to ask yourselves why it is you hate America so much."

I ask myself every day when I wake up, and again before I go asleep. But thanks for the suggestion.

Great Banana

And he'll calmly respond that he's still not sure whether there was an underlying crime because of Libby's obstruction of justice. You do understand what that term means, don't you?

Uhh, you do realize that Armitage admitted to being the one who leaked Plame's identity? So, your response (above) is idiotic. We all know who committed the "outing". It just so happens that there was no crime in the "outing" and thus no charges were brought regarding the outing.

But, you can dream.

Only problem is that a jury just convicted the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, who also served as an assistant to the President of the United States, for perjury and obstruction of justice. Given the amount of time you spent over the past two years covering this case, I can hardly see how this was "Fizzlemas".

I'll take this conviction for perjury (assistant to VP) over the admitted perjury of the president (Clinton). The left seemed not to mind perjury too much just a few short years ago (I know, it is what the lie is about - if you don't think the lie matters, than it is ok to perjure - thus Clinton lying under oath was OK).

Sara (Squiggler)

Napolitano is predicting a Bush pardon.

Extraneus

Festive!

Great Banana

That's not the GOP way, though, is it? Blame everyone else for your crimes, deny responsiblity, feign ignorance, etc.

Like the Clinton's did when they said there was a vast right wing conspiracy? That kind of accountability? The left sure is funny when they try to make a point. They have conveniently short memories. Once any leftist takes accountability or acts like an adult, we on the right will take arguments like this seriously.

arcanorum

"Napolitano is predicting a Bush pardon."

Bush wont let this good man go to jail, you can take that to the bank. If it isnt handled in the courts, the decider will decide.

All is well.

malcontent

So MikeS, let's say hypothetically speaking that you hear that some guy is nailing your girlfriend behind your back and that you begin to try to find out who he is.

You would remember EVERY piece of information related to that rumor because it would be IMPORTANT to you. In much the same way, I remember pertinant detaials from conversations I have which are IMPORTANT in nature, but I often forget inconsequential details.

Libby is a liar. Cheney is a liar and a traitor. Republicans in general are selfish, dishonest - to both themselves and others - callous, narrow-minded, lite-Fascists.

All of your ilk should be rounded up and marched into one of Halliburton's new detention facilities - you represent an active menace to America.

Barney Frank

clem,

--And he'll calmly respond that he's still not sure whether there was an underlying crime because of Libby's obstruction of justice.--

Of all the stupidities in this affair this has to be the dumbest.
The only lies Fitz says Libby told were that at the time he thought he heard about Plame from reporters not the VP. In what conceivable way does that cover up any underlying crime? He was prosecuted for generic obstruction, not covering up a particular crime.
The closest Fitz could come was declaring Plame's status as being classified but it is not a crime to reveal even that. That may or may not be a good thing but it is the current law.

malcontent

If Libby is pardoned, he will be hunted down like the trash he is and killed.

Great Banana

I have watched Napolitano on Fox, and I really think he is about the worst legal analyst out there. He is often completely wrong on the legal issue. I don't understand why Fox uses him. I think he is a hack at best. Where was he a judge, village court?

And, I say this as a committed conservative. Fox needs to dump that guy and find someone who knows what they are talking about on legal matters.

smh10

Sara:

Did the Judge mention when he thought the President might pardon?

Patton

So how does Fitz justify letting the actual leakers go?

In addition, Fitz says lying is critical to be prosecuted. Well what about this guy:

Tim Russert who has a law degree, testified he did not know a lawyer could not accompany a witness before the grand jury. The defense then found three clips where Russert had said on the air that a lawyer cannot go into the grand jury with his client.

Gee, three times in the past Russert said it and we are to believe that now he has just simply forgot? Did he forget for all time? Or just a moment?

His prior statements are not fuzzy testimony from other people, but clear words form his own mouth.

I am waiting for the charges to be filed Fitzy, if you are actually a man of your word.

Or do you find lying is OK, just as long as its your witness??

arcanorum

"All of your ilk should be rounded up and marched into one of Halliburton's new detention facilities - you represent an active menace to America."

Thanks very much for the suggestion, I know that I for one am writing my representative on this very matter right now!

Thanks again!

Dwilkers

Hmm. We made need an intervention here.

Great Banana

It's hard to determine whether Malcontent is a real left or a lefty parody. If a parody, it is funny b/c it hits it on the head. If not, it's funny b/c I think it is someone making fun of leftists.

Barney Frank

GB,

I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again; Napolitano is an imbecile, whatever his politics may be.

Deagle

The only GOOD thing that will come of this is that in the future, MSM reporters will be placed under oath in future trials (or spend time in jail).

Gives me a warm feeling...

Bruce

"You would remember EVERY piece of information related to that rumor because it would be IMPORTANT to you."

Sure. But if Tom told you your girlfriend cheated on you on Tuesday, and Bob told you on Wednesday and Steve told on Thursday and then you went back and talked to Steve, Bob and Tom a couple of more times and then 3 months later would you remember exactly who told you what when?

arcanorum

"Or do you find lying is OK, just as long as its your witness??"

I think the Russert lies are the good kind of lies. I'm pretty sure about that, but I'll have to ask Fitz.

MikeS

Bruce:
You da man!

arcanorum

"The only GOOD thing that will come of this is that in the future, MSM reporters will be placed under oath in future trials (or spend time in jail).

Gives me a warm feeling..."

While the hundreds of journos spending time in jail 'protecting' their sources is not worth even one day of innocent Scooter Libby in jail.

But then Libby will never spend a day in jail, and the journo jailing precedent is locked in for the next century.

Yes, all is well.

Great Banana

What President Bush needs to do is follow the Clinton precedent, wait until the last few hours of his administration, and then pardon people who give a lot of money to your library or wife's senate campaign.

I feel that works best.

Dwilkers

Mark Levin Corner post on Fitz

uh_clem

Uhh, you do realize that Armitage admitted to being the one who leaked Plame's identity? So, your response (above) is idiotic. We all know who committed the "outing".

Yes, we all know who committed the outing: Armitage, Rove, Fleischer and Libby, under the direction of Cheney. (Armitage may or may not have been freelancing) Was this a conspiracy? Did it meet the criminal definition of conspiracy? No way to really know, since Libby was willing to lie to protect his boss.

What's clear at this point is that Libby invented a story that didn't hold water and stuck to it. Then tried to use the excuse "I forgot" to cover for himself. Pathetic.

goldwater

malcontent,


Go fuck yourself.

arcanorum

"Yes, we all know who committed the outing: Armitage, Rove, Fleischer and Libby, under the direction of Cheney. "

Its clear that you are rather uninformed about the facts. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Now, go away.

verner

Did anybody else just see the jury forman on FOX--you know, the ex-Washington Post employee? The guy that said "where's Rove? Where's Cheney?"

Oh My Gawd. If this is American Justice--we are all soooo screwed.

american in europe

I apologize in advance if this post is too long, but I just need to get a few thoughts off my chest.

The Libby verdict is indeed an example of the criminalization of politics, but it didn't begin here. Libby is payback for the Clinton impeachment, which was payback for Iran Contra and Watergate, which was ultimately payback for the Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs.

The American left's sympathy for the Soviet Union after World War II was real, and that sympathy did indeed cross the line into treason in a few isolated cases, but the HUAC witch hunts of the 50s were wrong and counter-productive. I think that's where the criminalization of politics started. Still, on the big issue of the day the anti-communists were right, and the left could never forgive them for it. They got their revenge by hounding anti-communist Presidents from office, first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon. (Actually, if you count Oswald's assasination of Kennedy, the revenge pattern may have started even earlier.) They also tried and failed with Reagan, but then the Soviet Union collapsed and the whole "anti-anti-communist" animus on the left died down. It might have stayed dead too if the right hadn't tried to settle the score with Whitewater and various bimbo eruptions. Clinton did lie under oath, but that investigation should have been dropped long before it ever came to that since it was so clearly a political hit-job.

Then 9/11 happened, which revived the whole issue of foreign enemies that the left sympathizes with, and caused Democrats to revert to old habits of the heart and mind. Now we've had a show trial ostensibly about a leak of classified information and/or false statements depending on who you talk to, but deep down everyone knows it's just another attempt to take down a President. Now Libby probably did shade his testimony to protect his boss from embarassment, but this whole backstory of a plot to "out" the wife of an administration critic is a figment of the left's collective imagination. Unfortunately, the media, the prosecutor and much of the general public have bought it hook, line and sinker. Frankly, that's just not the way the real world works. That sort of thing only happens in Hollywood movies, written by people still pissed off at Joseph McCarthy, how many years later? In real life, bureacrats push paper and respond to critics and try to cover their a**es, but they don't engage in convoluted schemes against enemies real or imagined. The only plot here is the plot from All the Presidents Men, and everyone on the jury knew how it is supposed to end and refused to deviate from the script.

I just hope the next time the Republicans come to power (hopefully with a moderate candidate like Giuliani) they will resist the urge to take another kick at the can. This has to end somewhere.

Patrick

If you think about it, Fitz' final statement that it is "over (unless they find something new)" goes a long way toward helping Libby on his best issue for appeal: The constitutionality (or lack thereof) of this particular Fitz apppointment. Esentially, he has been given the power to maintain this investigation in perpetuity, and although the investigation is "inactive" and has been since prior to the trial, he has essentially claimed the power to re-activate the investigation, at any time. I wonder if the referral letter makes any points about this. I would love to see it (not holding my breath). How long can this last? 10 years down the line? I think the appellate attorneys should hammer that. Then again, I thought the trial attorneys should hammer the distinction between Wilson's false op-ed and Wilson's wife.

Great Banana

Yes, we all know who committed the outing: Armitage, Rove, Fleischer and Libby, under the direction of Cheney. (Armitage may or may not have been freelancing) Was this a conspiracy?

Really, we know that Rove was involved? Libby was not charged or convicted of "outing" plame - so are you sure we know that?

We do know that both Armitage and Fleisher "outed" plame. They have both admitted it, but neither was charged, which intelligent people understand to mean that there was no crime committed in "outing" plame.

You can charge the people individually, you do not have to prove a "conspiracy". Indeed, if you believe there is a conspiracy, you charge the individuals and plea bargain with them to give up their co-conspirators.

but here, we know for a fact that two people "outed" plame, but neither was charged with any wrongdoing. Thus, logic dictates that there was no crime committed in "outing" plame.

Thus, your response is even dumber than the last response.

Bruce

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554231

The MSM mole on the jury.

Deagle

Refer to what Goldwater said...

Mark Coffey

Tom, don't miss Glenn Greenwald, in typically understated fashion:

Today's event sends a potent and unmistakable message, one that is absolutely reverberating in the West Wing: If Libby can be convicted of multiple felonies, then any Bush official who has committed crimes can be as well. Not only are Bush officials subject to the rule of law (their radical theories of executive power to the contrary notwithstanding), they are also vulnerable to legal consequences (the defeatist beliefs of some Bush critics notwithstanding). Having the nation watch this powerful Bush official be declared a criminal -- despite having been defended by the best legal team money can buy -- resoundingly reaffirms the principle that our highest political officials can and must be held accountable when they break the law.

Some of the future events in the Libby case are easy to foresee, while others are more uncertain. Almost immediately after the verdict was announced, Libby's counsel, Theodore Wells, vowed that Libby would request a new trial and if that is unsuccessful (as it likely will be), he will appeal the conviction. Those are routine steps in a case of this magnitude. What is both less routine and less certain is the question of whether prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is planning to leverage this conviction in order to secure additional indictments against other possible defendants, possibly the vice president himself. Fitzgerald stressed after the verdict that he had "no expectations" of further indictments, but he left open that possibility in the event that new information came to light that warranted further proceedings.

Wow! Fitzgerald said no mas, but it was just a clever feint! Keep hope alive!...

roanoke

Dwilkers thanks for the link-

It was a very odd statement for the juror to make — "where's Rove" — when he and the others are supposed to be focused on the evidence before them.

This suggests to me that they weren't solely focused on the evidence. And they were encouraged to look elsewhere at the end of the trial by none other than Fitzgerald in his closing statement — who sounded like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. I have no idea if the jury was faithful to its mission, as Andy insists. Let me suggest that they may well have swallowed the bait Fitzgerald threw them in his closing respecting the Republican White House out to settle a score with poor Wilson and Plame. The "where's Rove" comment by this juror, after the trial was over and the verdict was in, brings me to a different conclusion than Andy.

More generally, as long as cases with political overtones are tried in the District of Columbia, Republicans will be at a severe disadvantage. I don't believe that jurors are more perfect than the rest of society. I don't believe in every case they are able to ignore their own biases. And that's especially true when they're being prodded in that direction by the prosecution.

Until something is done about this, people like Bill Clinton and Sany Berger will get what amounts to a pass and Lewis Libby will be facing prison time.

Pair that with the information that the juror wrote a CIA spy novel.

arcanorum

(hopefully with a moderate candidate like Giuliani)

Guiliani was known as one of the worst attack dog prosecutors, although he has seemed to mellow some with age.

hit and run

New Toesnsing article


***Toensing*** of course.

I blame Clarice's electrician. And decorator. All that ruckus, you can't blame me for a few typos.

TexasToast

Fizzlemas?

Au contraire, mon ami! It is Fitzmas indeed!

It seemed obvious from the first that the OVP was leading the charge to twist, divine, interpret and recast intelligence to support a predetermined policy of invasion of Iraq. Cheney is still on that mission (he seems to be one of the few people who will actually call the Iraq war a "success"), although its becoming more of a lonely obsession as the war becomes a larger and larger political liability.

It seemed pretty obvious that Cheney was out of reach when the grand jury handed down these indictments. That was the lump of coal, so to speak. Libby took the bullet, he was not going to flip, and there was probably no way to prove a case against Cheney without the testimony of Libby.

While Libby succeeded in protecting Cheney, in the Democratic view of the world, the trial of Libby still served to expose the OVP as intelligence manipulation central - hyper to discredit Wilson because he was a threat to their case for war. Cheney’s notes indicate that he was at the center of the planning. Libby’s lying was simply the vice president’s last defense.

Whitehall

Good men fight and die on the battlefields of Iraq.

Libby is willing to fight and lose his freedom on the battlefields of Washington, D.C.

I would like to think that the jury made the best decision they could given the evidence that Walton allowed into the courtroom.

They weren't allowed the indictments

They weren't allowed all the witnesses (Mitchell)

They weren't allowed to know Plame's legal status.

I could be wrong and that they have may had too much BDS to come up with any other verdict.

I've been on juries and been aghast at how the legal professionals try to subvert the authority of the citizen panel. We citizens, sitting as jurors, are the final check on injustice.

Looks like that check failed in this case.

Best of luck, Mr. Libby.

roanoke

Also what is the juror's claim about-

How bad they felt for Libby?

Remember all the "fun"?

The t-shirts, the happy time lunch, the laughs in the courtroom reported by FDL.

There is also reports that they gave the Guilty verdict in an angry fashion when they were polled individually. [sorry I can't remember where I heard that.]


Anyone else hear that one?

uh_clem

Libby was not charged or convicted of "outing" plame - so are you sure we know that?

Are you really so dense that you need an indictment and a conviction to accept something as fact?

Do you dispute the fact that Libby was leaking to Miller as early as June? Were you watching the same trial as I was?

we know for a fact that two people "outed" plame, but neither was charged with any wrongdoing. Thus, logic dictates that there was no crime committed in "outing" plame.

By your "logic" the absence of an indictment or conviction is proof positive that no crime was committed. I guess you believe OJ is innocent.

arcanorum

"Best of luck, Mr. Libby."

Well put, whitehall. And I second your remarks.

An honorable man has seen his good name sullied. But this fight is far from over, and the battle takes place not only in courtrooms in DC, it reverberates thoughout the heartland of the greatest nation on the face of our planet.

All is well.

Deagle

Disgusting actions for a jury responsible for ruining a life. Hey, but this is DC, so I guess that kind of attitude is understandable.

I sure hope that someone on that jury has the guts to come forward and feel some remorse.

Rachel

I take great pleasure in the fact that the jury was bemoaning the unfairness that all they got was Libby. No Rove. No Cheney.
Did they spend part of the 9 days dreaming of convicting him instead? Bummer.
And the investigation has ended. After Fritz said that, Chris Matthews looked like his dog had died. Crestfallen.

Fizzlemas it is.

Everyone knows no Repubilcan will walk after being tried in a DC courtroom. Try and kill a Republican, and you get not guilty by reason of insanity.

Tom Maguire

So, it ain't quite over. I understand why you'd like it to be, but this is going to drag on for a while yet.

Oh, I am far from striking my colors, not while Gregory, Mitchell, and Russert are still in play.

arcanorum

"Are you really so dense that you need an indictment and a conviction to accept something as fact?"

a false indictment and a wrongful conviction is not worth much, except as proof of prosecutorial incompetence.

hope that answers your question.

Patton

For Tom and Clarice,

Could you comment on whether you believe the DOJ guidelines are grounds for appeal.

The guidelines apparently deny the right to a fair trail because the prosecution does not treat them like a normal witness, they are not subject to the same scrutiny everyone else is, their questioning was severely limited to the point that they didn't go before the GJ so there was no record of extensive testimony, the GJ didn't get to folow-up on any areas, etc. etc.

What if the prosecutors just decided to start using the journalist guidelines for all witnesses?? Wouldn't they be able to craft a perjury case pretty easily if the never question a secondary witness simply because they are a journalist?

Just how much do those guildelines limit the defense when all the major witnesses are other journalists who don't have to answer questions??

Sara (Squiggler)

malcontent --myou are full of it.

If you heard rumors and immediately discounted them until months later and then heard something that was more than a rumor, you would have a hard time reconstructing the old rumors you discounted as untrue or irrelevant in the first place.

I just won a substantial civil suit for police brutality where the genesis of the case began with a crazy neighbor who I did not know but who had assigned to herself the role of my Mother's best friend, a role not shared by my Mother. Things that I thought she was doing out of friendship turned out to be untrue and in fact, she was trying to eliminate me so she could seize control over my mother and her finances. Things that should have raised suspicion on my part were ignored because I didn't believe that a 70+ year old neighbor had either mine or my Mother's worst interests at heart. By the time I discovered what was going on, she had spread so many rumors and had enlisted others into her scheme, it took six years to sort it all out. Others warned me that she was a sneak and a liar, but I was too busy with my elderly mother's full time care, that I dismissed this woman's idiosyncrasies and the signs and chalked them up to her own elder state. When my Mother instructed me to cut off all conversations with this woman and to bar her from the premises, she called the cops and told them I had murdered my mother by starving her to death. The fact that my Mother thrived for four more years and was physically healthy right up to the end made her claim ridiculous but I still got my back broken and my body beaten by cops who were told that I was a dangerous individual so they needed to use excessive force.

This neighbor was a Joe Wilson type, lie, lie some more, get others to believe your lies and then go after the person who they saw as preventing you from getting the result from the lie you were planning.

My satisfaction for both myself and my Mother came the other day in the form of a big fat check as a settlement to my claims. Many want me to continue and go after the neighbor now, but like allowing an abuser to dominate your thoughts long after the abuse ends, I will not for my own sanity. I was vindicated, my Mother (God rest her soul) is vindicated and I'm positive that some day the neighbor will have her own nightmare, if she is still alive, and if not, may she rot in hell.

Deagle

uh chem,

Yep, and OJ was innocent wasn't he?

See arcanorum...

Patton

It appears that the defense didn't want, and Walton didn't want to get into a fight
over forcing a journalist to testify like Gregory.

Or didn't Wells do enough to use the issue on appeal?

hit and run

Juror: Unfair to Libby, this sucks, where's Rove, the case is so much less than we thought....etc....etc....etc....

I had predicted "Not Guilty By Reason of WTF Are We Doing Here"

I hadn't conceived of the "Guilty By Reason of WTF Are We Doing Here"

Live and learn.

glass

american in europe | March 06, 2007 at 02:20 PM
Really respect your retrospective on liberals agenda and I might add the Bork hearings gave them traction in trying to control our legal system.
Attorneys like Tom M and Clarice have to lead the fight in this battle against the BDS'rs or else we may all be lost.

DNA/NDA/ADN/DAN

Fitz is taling about the Plame treason trial.

kate

We seem to have quite a lot of little visitors on our board today. Glad I perfected the art of SOB.

I am kind of relieved this is over. I think Bush intends to allow the appeals process play out (that's our leader!) unless the judge and Fitz force Bush's hand by ordering Libby to prison right after sentencing. Fitzgerald is vindictive enough to do it and let's face it, the judge has not said no to Fitz yet.

Pagar

"You people need to ask yourselves why it is you hate America so much."
America needs to ask why?
People like John Kerry- Went to Paris, met with the enemy during wartime, adopted and promoted their positions,while the same enemy was killing Americans in SE Asia. As admitted by his own words in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 22 Apr 1971.

People like Sen Rockefeller admitting his trip
in Jan 2002 to meet with the leader of Syria,
here

Sen Nelson (D-Fl)Sen Dodd, Sen Kerry, Sen Specter have all been in Syria recently.

Why?

roanoke

hit and run

You should have known they'd get it

Backasswards. It's D.C.

arrowhead

roanoke -

Yes, I heard it, too. On Fox.

clarice

I don't know if it's ground for appeal--but because the govt used the guidelines as it did and because reporters would certainly not assist the defense in its trial preparation, the result was no more than half the story to the gran jury and all the advantage to the prosecution at trial when it came to what reporters knew, when they knew it and who they told. It's why no other DoJ prosecutor would have continued this after Armitage.

uh_clem

Oh, I am far from striking my colors, not while Gregory, Mitchell, and Russert are still in play.

Good for you. Give 'em hell. And I mean that sincerely.

Miller's career has been ruined over this, and deservedly so. Russert & Mitchell should face the same music. Not sure about Gregory.

Sara (Squiggler)

uh clem --get your facts straight. Joe Wilson outed his own wife months before the Novak article was written.

Sue

Did this juror, Denis Collins, just hand the defense their perfect appeal? Maybe. Did he disclose he was the author of a book that on Amazon says this?

Everyone, at some time in his or her life, fantasizes about being a spy--James Bond, Mata Hari, George Smiley, Maxwell Smart. At the new International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C., more than a million visitors have stepped into the secret history of history--and have learned what it is really like to live undercover. This distinctive and fascinating book at once distills and expands upon that experience, with inside information on how spies do their jobs, interviews with operatives, and hundreds of photographs and descriptions of tools of the trade.

Biographies of legendary spies and how they completed their special operations are included, along with timelines showing the developments of bugs, surveillance tools, weapons, and disguises. Letters, maps, examples of disguises, dead drops, and rare photos make spies and their operations from 2000 BC to the present live and breathe on every page.

I wasn't there. Clarice? Do you remember if he disclosed he was the author of a book about covert operatives?

Jane

If Libby is pardoned, he will be hunted down like the trash he is and killed.

Seems to me that is a threat. I certainly hope TM tracks down your identity and sends a tip in to a federal prosecutor.

Sue

Did I mention it was published on October 1, 2004?

hit and run

arrowhead:
Yes, I heard it, too.


WE FOUND THE LEAKER! Arrowhead you are so busted.

arrowhead

I confess. Unfortunately, I've forgotten what for.

centralcal

From Quinn Hillyer at American Spectator:

J'accuse!

I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of using the courts for a personal vendetta (related to the old Marc Rich case). I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of improperly using his closing argument to broaden the case into an indictment of Dick Cheney and of thereby sliming Scooter Libby of guilt by association. I accuse Fitzgerald of improperly intimating to the jury that Libby betrayed deadly national secrets. I accuse Fitzgerald of extreme inconsistency in giving blanket immunity to Ari Fleisher without even knowing what Fleisher would say, while badgering Libby for hours on end in order to trap Libby into saying anything, anything at all, that this modern-day Inspector Javert could claim was perjury. I accuse Fitzgerald of manufacturing a case out of whole cloth even after knowing, almost from day one, that there was no underlying crime. I accuse Fitzgerald of treating Libby (and Rove) entirely differently from Richard Armitage. I accuse Fitzgerald of manifold abuses of his prosecutorial authority and discretion. I accuse Fitzgerald of persecuting an innocent man. I accuse Fitzgerald of megalomania. I accuse Fitzgerald of bloodlust. In short, I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of being a lousy excuse for a human being. And I hope our Maker, the Great Author of All Justice, will do true justice in the end."

Amen, brother Quinn!

arcanorum

"I confess. Unfortunately, I've forgotten what for."

proof enough for me and Fitz, anybody got a rope?

Jake - but not the one

Clearly there are lunatics on the left - not just the right. Come on, guys, your fellow travelers on various right wing sites have promised murder and rape on all kinds of occasions. It is ALWAYS wrong.

The tubz do tend to bring out the crazies.

And, Tom, if this is Fizzlemass, I'll take it and be glad. I believe justice was served, even if not as large a portion as some had due them.

I keep in mind that half the time when you get the karma you deserve, it turns out to be someone else's. I think Libby could buy into that idea.

Jake

kate

Fitz seemed rather subdued today. Back in October 2005, he was the man who could do no wrong.

Did he tell any baseball stories. I didn't hear the whole thing.

Maryrose seemed down. I hope she's doing better. Stay away from Hardball for a few days.

uh_clem

get your facts straight. Joe Wilson outed his own wife months before the Novak article was written.

So, where do I find "facts" like this? Other than in the comments section of blogs, of course.

ThomasJackson

Let me understand this during the Clinton trial Hillary pleaded "could not recall" over 200 times and got off scot free. Libby goes to jail for a non crime?


Need any further evidence that our system of justice is no better than the Stalinist show trials.

arcanorum

"And, Tom, if this is Fizzlemass, I'll take it and be glad. I believe justice was served, even if not as large a portion as some had due them."

'Those who are free of resentful thoughts surely find peace.' -Buddha

take a chill pill, daddio, and be on your merry way.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'...it often seemed like the entire defense strategy was to accumulate appeal points rather than put on a credible defense.'

I agree with that. I kept telling myself that Wells is getting $700 an hour for a reason, but I couldn't understand his defense. Honestly, Team JOM could have put on a better defense.

arcanorum

"So, where do I find "facts" like this? Other than in the comments section of blogs, of course."

'They have ears but they can not hear, eyes but they can not see.' -Psalms

keep seeking grasshopper, and you shall find.

arrowhead

"I keep in mind that half the time when you get the karma you deserve, it turns out to be someone else's." posted by Jake

Looks like the Birkenstock crowd has arrived.

That's just a little too Kahlil Gibran for me, Grasshopper.

roanoke

Holy Gawd-

Why am I just finding this now? It gets worse-

• Seat 9, Juror 1869: A white male and a former Washington Post reporter who once had Bob Woodward as an editor. He used to share space with Tim Russert of “Meet the Press.” While he had questions about the Bush administration’s rationale for going to war, he said that, “I’m very skeptical about everything I hear until I see it backed up.”

Jury make-up from- Legaltimes.com

link,

Jane

arcanorum,

You are on quite a roll. I truly appreciate it.

kate

Patrick R. Sullivan: I think TM could have done a great job. I think the defense team was only fair. In some instances, they were terrible. The close was poor and that's bad.

Patton

It would have been priceless if Libby or his lawyers went before the microphones today and said:

It is a sad day when the men who leaked the identity of a covert operative, refused to testify to the Grand Jury, and who obstructed the investigation by not revealing all the journalists they had leaked to get protection from the special prosecutor; while those that fully cooperated with the investigation get convicted. Mr. Fitzpatrick has taught all the actual leakers a valuable lesson. Be the leaker and you get a walk. Be the obstructor and you get immunity.

uh_clem

keep seeking grasshopper, and you shall find.

As I expected. Nothing to back up your "facts".

Beam me up, Mr. Scott. There is no intelligent life here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame