Judge Walton ruled that Libby is unlikely to prevail on appeal. From Reuters:
Former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby must begin serving his 2 1/2-year prison sentence while he appeals his perjury conviction, a U.S. judge ruled on Thursday.
...
Libby will have to report to prison in six to eight weeks, unless his lawyers convince an appeals court to let him remain free.
Libby's lawyers said they would base the appeal on the contention that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was improperly appointed.
They also plan to argue that U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton was wrong to exclude witnesses and classified material Libby had hoped to use in his defense.
Walton, however, said they were unlikely to prevail.
"I would have to conclude that although he doesn't pose a danger to the community and he doesn't pose a risk of flight ... there is not a likelihood of success," Walton said.
Firedoglake had liveblogging: 1, 2, 3, commentary. This account of the CIPA issue (discussed yesterday) is cryptic yet amusing:
Robbins (for Libby): ...The question here is whether these are close questions. I don’t think it can be debated that these are close, and I think we’ll win.
When someone does not have to report to anyone, does not have to follow DOJ procedures, sometimes things go wrong. Under section 6c2 under ______ the AG is allowed to object to disclosure of classified information, if disclosure would damage national security. Fitzgerald did submit such a report because he assumed plenary authority.
Walton: but the CIPA issues did not arise until later when Libby asked for material.
Robbins: But this is an example of how things go wrong when authority is too broadly delegated. [Reads the language of the act, congressional statute]. Authority to AG, DAG, AAG. These are the ones who can make these disclosures, and no one else.
Walton: Be that as it may, your client through his counsel did not submit his request to Mr. Fitzgerald, their CIPA request, not to others. This issue was not raised at the time. Was this issue waived?
Robbins: My understanding is this document was declassified and made public after the case. I was not part of the history of this case. But Lawrence Walsh was denied this authority in the past.
Walton: I think your co-counsel did not address this.
Jeffress: This affidavit was submitted in camera. It has recently under seal, and we obtained it pursuant to your ruling, we received it in May.
Walton: Your time is up.
So Fitzgerald signed an affidavit for which he lacked authority, suggesting he was either inadequately supervised or improperly appointed.
The judge wonders why the defense didn't appeal this issue at the time. To which the defense responds, well, it was filed exclusively with the judge under seal, so we only saw it in May. And then time is up!
My question - which May do they mean? JOM commenters were ruminating about this issue in December 2006. OTOH, the motion to dismiss the indictment based on improper appointment was filed back in Feb 2006, so maybe the defense got this in May 2006.
OK, we have more CIPA discussion a bit later; here is a bit of it:
Walton: Do you think you were in full compline with what was envisioned by CIPA.
Fitzz: If someone had objected would could have gotten a second signature or could have made an application to close the courtroom. We are picking on the most minor violation.
Walton: There was a violation, so what is remedy.
Fitz: It was not a classified document and it would have been waived or we could have had any number of other signatures.
Walton: I assume suggestion by defendant is that you were given the authority by inference to handle CIPA matters even though it was not clear at the time that CIPA would be in play.
Fitz: They are misdescribing 6a as if it was 6c.
Fitz: AUSA’s handle CIPA material, so this notion that the alleged technical violation of CIPA was an issue of whether courtroom should be closed. These were issues that AUSA’a could have argued.
Walton: But if you signed something that you may arguably not have had the authorityto sign, does this go to you being a superior officer? One could infer you presumed such authority.
Fitz: If the defense thought this was an obvious error we could have dealt with it then. If there was a violation that I signed under one authority versus another authority, this is waiver and harmless error if it is error. We can’t turn around for filing on 6a and go through a whole trial and bring this out later.
I don't know Lawrence S. Robbins or Mark Stancil,Sara.
Anduril--Here's my thinking. No one who pays attention likes this procedure. This case is a perfect opportunity for the Scotus to so limit it that it will fade away like dunking stools.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 08:02 PM
I watched bits and pieces of Hume, but didn't catch the Paul Potts bit. So I'm tivo'ing it when it comes on again at 8 PDT.
What is our policy now? Do we respond to Looking (who, as I recall used to be something close to serious, but is now out there with the furthest Plutonians)? Hell, I've watched Paul Potts enough to be in a rather magnanimous mood, so here we go.
Looking, no one has adduced any evidence of criminal conduct by Cheney, and there is no imaginable evidence that Libby could give--at least, not within an imagination not dangerously fevered. (Making $50 million off the war, jiggering the intelligence--not crimes.)
As for Cheney making money off the war, it is a matter of abundant public record that the amount he made was zero, and that his financial interest in it was zero. All moneys due him, and being paid to him, by reason of his prior association with Halliburton are issued from funds segregated before he left the company. It is a matter of utter financial indifference to him if Halliburton were to go bankrupt.
As to the jiggering of the intelligence, see the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report. See, also, the Butler report. As to the inclusion of the sixteen words, see the various statements of George Tenet, which are authoritative.
You seem to be in a state of distress about all of this, which is of course a fine thing.
Posted by: Other Tom | June 14, 2007 at 08:03 PM
This link gives some info on Fitz investigating the forgery.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:05 PM
And this LINK says it never happened.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Sara, you are, hmm, two minutes ahead of me (or maybe an hour and two minutes? Time will tell...). And I put Laura Rozen miles ahead of UPI and the TruthOut crowd on this one. Darn, though. No Fitzgerald to Italy.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 14, 2007 at 08:15 PM
Sylvia - Sorry it doesn't matter who may have raped her or had sex with her - it was the three that were vilified, nor any other Duke LAX players.
Your still trying to excuse her accusing the wrong men.
There is no excuse.
Posted by: Enlightened | June 14, 2007 at 08:16 PM
Sara- am I crazy? For some reason, I thought you had moved to Orlando.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 14, 2007 at 08:16 PM
Sara - thanks for that last link - I had a vague memory the Rome thing didn't happen and it was war and peice
So - since it appears this was the Jason Leopold/Joe Wilson dynamic duo of misinformation that pushed it
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold10282005.html
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 08:16 PM
That's it - I promise no more thread hijacking...
Posted by: Enlightened | June 14, 2007 at 08:16 PM
This via Wizbang and way off topic, but so disgusting, I would like to go throttle those teachers myself:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:17 PM
I had a vague memory the Rome thing didn't happen and it was war and peice--
OK - I even laughed at this -- War and PEACE blog
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Maybee, I am still moving to the Orlando area, just haven't done it yet. I'm staying with my son and d-i-l. My back went out again and I couldn't handle the long drive plus the Navy decided to declare me deceased and I just got that all straightened out this week and got my 3 month's of back retirement checks. We are now shooting for mid-July.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:20 PM
TIME FOR A SONG.
"Hear ye, hear ye
The court's in session
The court's in session, now
Here comes the judge
Stop eatin' that fudge
Cause here comes the judge
Don't nobody buzz
Cause here comes the judge
Judge Shorty is presidin' today
And he don't take no stuff from nobody
No kind of way Hey boy, take off that hat
Where do you think you're at
I know where you gon' be
If you don't heed my plea
I'm here to tell you
Court's in session
Order in the court now
Court's in session
Can't nobody smoke now
Here comes the judge
Y'all here comes the judge
Order, order
What's the first case on the docket
Judge I got a boy here who can't dance
Can't dance? Ah
Ninety days, thirty days for boogaloo
Thirty days to learn how to shing-a-ling
And thirty more for the Afro twist
Can't dance, what is this
Court's in session everybody quiet now
Court's in session, here comes the judge
Here comes the judge
Is that the man?
No, your honor
Does he look like the man?
No, your Honor
Well, I'm sorry you got to go now
Ah ha you can't recognize the man
You got to stand guilty
Here comes the judge
Here comes the judge
Here comes the judge
Ah yes, here comes the judge
They caught him stompin' down the aisle
Yes here comes the judge
I'd rather be lost in the jungle of Brazil
Than to face the judge
This morning the way he feels
Here comes the judge
Here comes the judge boy".
Posted by: PeterUK. | June 14, 2007 at 08:23 PM
So how quickly can the Libby Team file an emergency appeal with the Appellate Court?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 14, 2007 at 08:29 PM
TM:
Sara, you are, hmm, two minutes ahead of me (or maybe an hour and two minutes? Time will tell...). And I put Laura Rozen miles ahead of UPI and the TruthOut crowd on this one. Darn, though. No Fitzgerald to Italy.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 14, 2007 at 08:15 PM
Ahem.
Seven. Forty. Eight.
Twenty. Seven. Minutes.
A. Head.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 14, 2007 at 08:29 PM
The reports of your demise are greatly exaggerated, eh Sara? Good luck with everything.
Tops- are you saying you think Wilson and Leopold make stuff up? Noooooo!
Posted by: Maybeex | June 14, 2007 at 08:29 PM
H&R, we cross-posted, but you were first and should get the credit. Besides, it is only 5:36 here so by that reckoning, I haven't even posted yet.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:36 PM
The reports of your demise are greatly exaggerated, eh Sara? Good luck with everything.
Greatly exaggerated may be in the eye of the beholder. ::smile:: Proving you are still alive and kicking is no easy task where the government is concerned. In fact, it was a real pain in the a$$.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:38 PM
OT, would you contact me please? You can use chas r martin AT gmail DOT com .
Thanks
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 14, 2007 at 08:38 PM
and here is supposedly what he said
And then?
to which Captain responded
This is hilarious - read what big brave truth to power Reid said he said to Pace - uh huh. Reid recently claimed he spoke truth to power to Bush about the war and it turned out he was lying.
It's the cluster eff of lying...I bet Reid was full crap about what he said to Pace to his face AND the Liberal Bloggers were lying to Sargent because they town-housed it and now Reid comes out an admits he DID tell Liberal blogger this.
Perfect!
Politico should follow up by asking Pace if Reid said this to him.
Make it full circle.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010236.php
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 08:38 PM
As for Cheney making money off the war, it is a matter of abundant public record that the amount he made was zero
Compare that to the kajillions Feinstein made. I'm shocked Looking isn't complaining about that. Perhaps its okay to profit from the war if you oppose it.
Potts is the last 5 minutes of the news OT - after the panel in that fun little Britt segment.
Posted by: Jane | June 14, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Besides, it is only 5:36 here so by that reckoning, I haven't even posted yet.
I'm sure it'll be terrific when you do get around to it, though.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 14, 2007 at 08:40 PM
How much money did Murtha and his kid brother make off these military contracts?
What about Pelosi?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 14, 2007 at 08:41 PM
Another OT -- Fox reported today that a huge car bomb factory was raided today in the Baghdad area thanks to tips. This comes on the heels of a truck bomb factory discovered in Anbar recently. The car bomb factory had 4 or 5 cars wired and filled with explosives ready to hit the streets and 300 more in the works. Now tell me again how the surge isn't working.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 08:41 PM
PUK:
TIME FOR A SONG, the Sequel:
I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong time
I'd of said the right thing
But I must have used the wrong line
I been in the right trip
But I must have used the wrong car
My head was in a bad place
And I'm wondering what it's good for
I been the right place
But it must have been the wrong time
My head was in a place
But I'm having such a good time
I been running trying to get hung up in my mind
Got to give myself a little talking to this time
Just need a little brain salad surgery
Got to cure this insecurity
I been in the wrong place
But it must have been the right time
I been in the right place
But it must have been the wrong song
I been in the right vein
But it seems like the wrong arm
I been in the right world
But it seems wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 08:42 PM
and Sargent wrote this today
So, either Sargent was dead wrong or Reid was lying yet again (but really telling the truth - because he had not said to Pace's face what he told Liberal Bloggers) and I betcha Politico had it on tape and Reid had to come clean.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 08:50 PM
h&r, you are now hit to me -- so much easier to type, and so obvious I don't know why I never tired it before. Plus, it seems to have a vaguely appropriate sort of sound.
This is from your TNR link. Not much there there but this from Ryan Liza at the White House Press Room after the Libby indictment was announced:
Oh what a difference a couple of years makes, eh?
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Yeah.
Those guilty pleas must be in the same drawer as the sealed indictments and the FBI record of Eckenrode's first interview of Russert.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 08:59 PM
Sara:
Besides, it is only 5:36 here so by that reckoning, I haven't even posted yet.
Heh....
You know, I remember the good ol' days when comments were timestamped on pacific time here.
[VIMH:Good ol' days?]
Yeah, 'cause those were pre-typekey days as well.
[VIMH: Typekey a pain for you, eh?]
Actually, cross your fingers, knock on wood, big bribes under the table, etc etc etc, no.
But I am playing to the crowd.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 14, 2007 at 09:01 PM
cathyf:
"Well, sure, I mean there are some really brilliant 1Ls out there, but they are all still a little green, so I wouldn't expect that even the smartest 1L could match the output of 12 distinguished lawyers with decades of experience thinking about the law. Right Reggie? That's what you meant, huh?"
I think Judge Reggie has made his opinion of "experts" pretty clear before, but darned if I can remember when or where. Maybe it's just déja vu, but then what do I know?
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 09:05 PM
JMH:
h&r, you are now hit to me
Well, I considered calling you PMW from now on.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 14, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Professional Mud Wrestler
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 14, 2007 at 09:07 PM
So, lemming that I am, I wandered over the Paul Potts cliff too.
Ditto. Ditto.
Every once in awhile, one unassuming guy justs triumphs over all the sleaze and stuns the shallow speechless. It's a beautiful thing to watch! And he did it with one of my all time favortie arias to boot. Good choice. :)
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 09:21 PM
I was worried we were talking about Post-Modern Woman, although I suppose that would still be better than the Deconstructivist alternative.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 09:26 PM
My favorite aria too JMH...
Posted by: Jane | June 14, 2007 at 09:31 PM
OT (AGAIN...sorry)
Has anyone seen this yet? Evidently Joe Wilson began working for Jarch Capital LLC, as Vice Chairman, in January of this year.
I noticed that at the bottom of that link, the corporate announcement was signed by Phil Heilberg, Chairmen Jarch Capital LLC so I googled Phil Heilberg and found this wedding announcement.
The wedding announcement states that Phillipe Heilberg "is the managing director of the Hong Kong office of AIG International Inc., the foreign exchange and metals trading unit of the American International Group, the insurance and financial services company."
In September 1999, The International Finance Corporation has invested in the largest equity fund ever established for investment in privately-owned infrastructure projects in Africa, the AIG African Infrastructure Fund (AIF).
Posted by: Rocco | June 14, 2007 at 09:40 PM
As no lib poster here..or Dem anywhere on the planet will think otherwise, GWB should just go ahead an use whatever powers he has...its too bad no one has any balls to call out Schumer
Posted by: BobS | June 14, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Jane:
Eventually we're going to discover that we were pals in third grade too. Except that I was probably in third grade with your mother.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 09:51 PM
Rocco: Has anyone seen this yet? Evidently Joe Wilson began working for Jarch Capital LLC, as Vice Chairman, in January of this year.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Finally, got the hang of this typepad thing.
What' d I miss. Oh yes, The star chamber against Libby, the total legal illiteracy of
Judge Walton (surpassed only by the clerks
in Hamdi, Hamdan, Al Marri, & Kelo cases)
You can ignore Ex parte Merryman, Milligan,
Quirin, Eisentrager, et al; on what grounds' don' ask. With these facts, along with the 13% of American Muslims who think
being a 'shaheed' is great, Murtha's bill to repatriate Gitmo detainees to US brigs,
along with Putin's almost czarist ramblings,
sound a little too reminiscent of this last
season of '24.
Don't get me started on how an Canadian-Afghan national, fighting for the Taliban
killing an American serviceman cannot be
an 'alien unlawful enemy combatant. Another
poor innocent Gitmo captive, a former Saudi
army officer, who swore an oath to Al Queda
but 'not to kill Americans'(what was he there for; antiquing, archaelogy?) committed
suicide. Time making Luce do somesaults in
his grave, just about now, is dismissing the
JFK plot, no harm, no foul.
There's of course, Murray Waas's long awaited?? tome on the case, (No post there
Tom) which consists of long winded court transcripts, some annotated Mo Dowd columns, Libby's NDA (the newest thing since the August 6, PDB)did Armitage sign
his, I wonder. an email snippet that should have flagged Matt Cooper's role in the case, from the get go. Cooper by the way,
was an author of a particularly painful
'memoir' piece in the new Conde Naste business publications, that featured even
more nauseating Valerie Wilson 'Sydney Bristow' pictures. However, Waas's book
elides any documentation of Plame's NOC status (what Corn added to the deal)no documentation of inventory of Niger uranium from COGEMA, or anything that would have actually proved Wilson's truth claims. Don't get me started on that Eisner book, which is tendentious to the extreme (ie; did you know Pat Roberts, Intelligence Comm. chief was the son of fmr Ike era RNC chair Wes Roberts; you can dismiss the SSCI report now)or the Hewitt inquiries. Other arguments, because not all of the 500 tons of yellow cake, were misplaced, none were.(like those found at the Al Tuweitha reactor, at the end of combat operations there. There's an even less balanced tale
by Bonini, with introduction by Sydney 'I
co-edited a book with the original CIA
renegade Phillip Agee' Blumenthal, so that
will give you a flavor of the book. Interestingly, the yellowcake meme did find its way, of all places, in te latest Bourne
tome,as part of a successor organization to AQ (Al Dujja 'Darkness')nuclear plot. in the latest installment of Ludlum's Bourne series. Howard Hunt, from the grave, tries
his luck as a JFK conspiracy theories and
dumps on Rumsfeld and Goss for good measure.
That's world class historical chutzpah. Posada Carriles, the most dangerous man on earth after Rudolph, Bin Laden, & Dick Cheney, was freed after a wily judge discovered the translation that was key to the 'immigration/ coverup was flawed.
Of the only real life politico, caricatured
in a Martin Scorsese mob film, Harry Reid,
(portrayed by Tommy Smothers in 'Casino'
the less said, the better. One can one say,
Reid, and Murtha, vs. the best trained military counterinsurgency expert in a generation. Thats a tough call, let me think
a minute. . .Having done the best to delay
the implementation of the surge, he pulls this stunt. Ironic that the Vegas
congressman of all people, ahould relate to
the hot, arid, milieu of Baghdad more that others. That and RaLPH Nader, another American Wahhabi variant; who just happens to have visited Vegas; recently..
Posted by: narciso79 | June 14, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Has anyone seen this yet? Evidently Joe Wilson began working for Jarch Capital LLC, as Vice Chairman, in January of this year.
I did not know this. Doesn't surprise me though that he would be involved in a company that would make an announcment in Sudan.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 14, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Good catch, rocco. I'll pass it on to fedora who's been tracking this for ages.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 10:03 PM
shareholders of AIF are Midroc, the company owned by international investor Sheikh Mohammed Al-Amoudi with $50 million
Same rotton terror sponsor?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 10:04 PM
oops
Same rotton terror sponsor of Rock Creek fame?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Narcisco,
Nice riff. Now if we can just get a tape of Al-Amoudi and Prince Bandar discussing the differences in the lease agreements covering Jimmy Carter and Harry Reid...
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 14, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Same.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 10:07 PM
narcisco:
Thanks for dipping into the Waas, so we don't have to!
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Rocco -- this
might be of interest too
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Clarice,
I don't think they are exactly the same. Reid got a clause in about his personal services contract with Mephistopheles taking precedence in certain situations. The Saudis bought off on it because of coincidence of interest but there have been some disagreements about double payment.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 14, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Andy McCarthy blames the law, not the judge:
"Today's ruling was absolutely to be expected. The judge was not going to make a ruling implicitly suggesting that the trial over which he presided was error-ridden.
The interesting part starts now. Now that Judge Walton has officially entered his judgment of conviction (which technically happens when sentence is imposed) jurisdiction will transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Thus, in very short order, Libby will file an expedited appeal challenging the Judge Walton's detention order on the ground that there are appellate issues on which he is likely to succeed. If he wins, it gets interesting because the appellate court would be signalling that it perceives some problem with the trial or sentence. If he loses, that will mean the denial of bail was no big deal because Libby's appeal is virtually certain to fail anyway.
That's where we're at. It's not about Judge Walton being a reasonable or unreasonable guy. It's about what the law says. I don't like the law. I doubt Scooter's appeal will go anyplace, but I think the Republic would be just fine if he could avoid jail until his appeals are exhausted. But that's not the way our system works anymore. I think it was better when we used to let judges be judges.
06/14 09:03 PM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
The Seventh Ciruit? I don't think so. But then I think he's all wet .
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Very funny, Rick. Typepad is giving me super fits. "Same" was a response to ts.This Al-Amoudi is the guy from Rock Creek International..
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Sara...I love this quote by Jefferson, “I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”
Thomas Jefferson to Jon Jay, 1785.ME 5:95, Papers 8:427
Wilson cast the first insult!
Rich...I couldn't have said it better.
Clarice...fedora might be interested in this link too, it mentions the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). I believe fedora mentions CNPC in his posts.
ts...Mima Nedelcovych is a former director of the African Development Bank. He traveled with Wilson and Alamoudi to Ethiopia in 99
Posted by: Rocco | June 14, 2007 at 10:34 PM
but of course--
Candidate or PAC Amount Date
Heilberg, Philippe
New York, NY 10028
Jarch Capital/Finance LIEBERMAN, JOSEPH I (D)
President
JOE LIEBERMAN FOR PRESIDENT INC $1,000
primary 01/12/04
HEILBERG, PHILIPPE M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
JARCH CAPITAL LLC SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate - NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER $1,000
primary 05/08/03
HEILBERG, PHILIPPE M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
JARCH CAPITAL LLC SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate - NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER $1,000
general 05/08/03
HEILBERG, PHILIPPE M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
HEILBERG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate - NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER $1,000
general 08/15/01
HEILBERG, PHILIPPE M
NEW YORK, NY 10028
HEILBERG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate - NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER $1,000
primary 04/16/01
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Speaking of quotations, Tammy Bruce had this one posted on her blog today. Too bad the politics of today has forgotten these words:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Another bit of irony, Ted Gup's latest book on the 'Culture of Secrecy' which spends half a chapter, bemoaning the covert status
of National Clandestine Services Chief, Jose
Rodriguez, a man already outed by American
Prospect's Boston Phoenix's and the Nation's
Jason Vest; without a subpoena from Fitz or
even a complaint by Scarry Johnson,
Cannistraro, et al. The reviewer for Commentary pointed this out. Than again, in a world where the former chief of base in Milan, can be outed so thoroughly that a bottom feeder like Cryptome's John Young
can give the family's contact information; nothing surprises me anymore. Although that
bit about Slow Joe Wilson, being part of a
company complicit in the Darfur genocide
with partners in the jihad disposed Yemeni Al Amoudi clan; is a close call. By the
way; its's Narciso.
Posted by: narciso79 | June 14, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Whether a convicted defendant is entitled to bail pending appeal is controlled by Section 3143 of Title 18, U.S. Code. The statute contains a clear presumption that a convicted defendant who has received a jail sentence will be incarcerated pending appeal ("the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal ... be detained") (emphasis added). The presumption in favor of incarceration may be overcome, as relevant in this case, only if the judge finds that "the appeal ... raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in (i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or (iv) [a reduced sentence that would amount to less than the time it will take to prosecute the appeal]" (emphasis added).
Applying that statute, Judge Walton was required to deny bail pending appeal unless he thought Scooter's appeal was likely to succeed.
In reading Andrew McCarthy's blog entry I find it telling that he misses the boat by a mile. The statute doesn't say "required to deny bail pending appeal unless he thought [defendant] Scooter's appeal was likely to succeed" No where does it say the judge has to find it likely that the appeal would succeed only that it is a close question and "likely to result in (i) reversal..." meaning (as you all have been saying for a while now) that if the appeals court sided with the defendant that it would result in a reversal or a new trial.
So does he have poor reading comprehension skills or is he biased?
Posted by: OnTheThirdRail | June 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Off to Jail [Mark R. Levin]
Andy writes, in part, "Applying that statute, Judge Walton was required to deny bail pending appeal unless he thought Scooter's appeal was likely to succeed. But, of course, if he thought there had been an error grievous enough to warrant reversal, he wouldn't have sentenced Scooter in the first place — he'd have set aside the jury verdict on his own and either acquitted him or ordered a new trial."
Of course, federal trial judges do not throw every convicted defendant in prison pending appeal. Why is that? Although they obviously believe they ruled properly on matters of law, they are willing to let other judges — judges who will hear the appeal anyway — review the challenged aspects of the case first, especially where you have a defendant who is neither dangerous nor a flight risk. Andy suggests Walton did not have that option. Clearly he did. The process isn't as clear-cut as suggested.
I believe the appointments-clause challenge is not frivolous, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Even Walton needed 31 pages to refute it. And his reliance on Morrison v. Olson seems misplaced for reasons I will argue in an amicus brief Landmark will likely be filing.
There are legitimate reasons to question Walton's judgment, in my view, including even his gratuitous comments about the law professors who had the audacity to file a brief in support of Libby. I have done my fair share of appellate work, and Walton's cheap shots would be worthy of at least a footnote in any appellate brief that I filed.
I don't mean to joust with my friend Andy, as we have throughout this case, but I am truly troubled by the prosecution and imprisonment of this man.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 11:21 PM
The majesty of the law [Mark Steyn]
Andy, I'm happy to yield to your superior knowledge of the relevant statutes, but my problem with Judge Reggie is one of tone as much as anything else. Putting aside his complaints about "angry, harassing, mean-spirited " letters, which make him sound like a whiney twerp, and the cheesy populist pandering - "If that's going to be how we have to operate, our system is going to be in serious trouble with the average Joe on the street who thinks the system is unfair already" - let's consider his thoughtful response to a six-page brief from a dozen eminent constitutional jurists of diverse political dispositions (from Alan Dershowitz to Robert Bork).
"The submission was not something I would expect from a first-year law student," sneered Judge Reggie, sweeping it aside. No magistrate with a care for the reputation of the court would be so crude. Perhaps he's auditioning for Court TV or the Paris Hilton appeal, but, if he's all hemmed in by controlling statutes anyway, is it too much to ask a judge to be a bit more judicious?
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 14, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Seventh Circuit? Is that a Freudian slip? The 7th covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. You're not in Kansas anymore, Andy, and neither is Fitz. And you're sure as hell not in Chicago.
Posted by: Other Tom | June 14, 2007 at 11:36 PM
OTTR:
"So does he have poor reading comprehension skills or is he biased?"
Probably just been reading too much Fitzgerald.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 14, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Obviously neither Mark Levin nor Mark Steyn have attended a Fitzlaw "Chicago [No] Rules Prosecution" seminar while McCarthy, hailing from the cesspit of SDNY has never had the need.
Mark Levin makes the 13th Amigo, no? Yo espera habrá muchos más but Levin counts for a lot more than just one.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Andy McCarthy, Mark Levin, Byron York--Somebody!--Help Me Out Here [Peter Robinson]
I’m with Mark Steyn on the deeply annoying superciliousness of Judge “Reggie” Walton, but, layman in all matters of the law that I most certainly am, I’m quite willing to defer to Andy on His Honor’s legal obligation to tell Libby to go to prison the moment the warden finds him a cell.
But there’s a big part of this I still don’t get: Judge Walton called the evidence against Libby “overwhelming.” This just doesn’t fit. Not with the courtoom reporting in the Times and here on NRO, where Byron York kept us all up to date. Any fair-minded person, I figured, would have to grant that, even if on balance it weighed against Libby, the evidence wasn’t “overwhelming” but mighty darned confusing—Libby’s memory against that of Tim Russert and others, as traced through pages and pages of testimony, about who said what during telephone calls that took place months and months ago.
“Overwhelming?” Either Judge Walton is a thorough stinker of a jurist or yours truly is missing something.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I had hoped that the amicus brief by the famous 12 would ultimately be helpful to Libby, not in Walton's court but at the appellate level. I think many would have expected Walton to rule the way he did today, so it had no shock effect. And it is probably a good thing to move this case away from a Dimbulb Walton. I'm not on Libby's side because I think he is not guilty but because I see a needless and unfair prosecution, especially when the person who actually leaked is not hauled up and the prosecution is allowed to shift the goalpost during the game. I'm no longer hopeful Libby will escape jail based on the appointment argument since the collective wisdom and experience of 12 distinguished lawyers cannot even measure up to a first year law student, per Walton.
Posted by: birdseye | June 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM
At the outset of the investigation when it appeared to most of us that it was "lame" in the words of Glenn Reynolds or myopic and so much so that it precluded a fair review of what had happened, McCarthy kept the right on the sidelines by vouching for the skill and fairness of his good friend and fellow SDNY prosecutor Fitz.
I'm glad to see soe at NRO aren't sitting still for his B.S> any longer.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Has anyone seen this yet? Evidently Joe Wilson began working for Jarch Capital LLC, as Vice Chairman, in January of this year.
I did not know this. Doesn't surprise me though that he would be involved in a company that would make an announcment in Sudan.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 14, 2007 at 10:00 PM
WELL Rich -- it's funny you should say this...because the whole episode - in fact the basis of their Civil suit - is predicated in loss of income etc. - it harmed them so drastically, destitute and unemployable...yet the secret pressers touts his selection based on:
Resume enhancer? Someone fax this to the Civil Judge.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2007 at 11:57 PM
My gut feeling at this point is that there will be more amigos joining the now 13 Amigos.
Landmark filing another amici curaie brief?
Hopefully, means far more than 13 Amigos.
Wonder what Oren something and Eugene Volokh think of today's ruling?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM
While we wait for Libby Team to file with the Appellate Court, we wait for Bates' ruling....
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 15, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Am I the only one?All the useful stuff that ordinarily sits to the right side of the web is now buried at the bottom.
Posted by: clarice | June 15, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Me, too. Andy's embarrassing himself every type he writes about Fitz and the Libby case.
Wonder what Guiliani thinks....
Guess Bush is still waiting on the emergency appeal....hopefully, the appellate court will delay the jail time. At least, Bush could commute or respite Libby's sentence if the Appellate Court agrees to hear the case.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 15, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Clarice, keep refreshing and it'll straighten itself out. I had that problem yesterday.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 15, 2007 at 12:07 AM
"Am I the only one? All the useful stuff that ordinarily sits to the right side of the web is now buried at the bottom."
Yeah - with IE it's screwed.
It is possible that TM took Cathy's advice about dynamiting the center column to make long tags wrap on screen. Or something like that.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 15, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Clarice
I notice when a useful item appears there seem to be hawk eyes in the waiting and at the ready to muck up the thread. I, myself, quite certain the Wilson "legal fund" has expenditures for this.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Oh - you were talking about something else altogether...my comment still stands.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 12:12 AM
LOVE IT --- Insty email comparing the Liberal Bloggers sudden lack of meaningful memory in the Reid bashing Pace etc. conference call...(that Reid admitted!)
HEH!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Volokh earlier today:
I read thru the first comments many hours ago and was surprised at the lack of love for the amicus brief and for the amount of love for Fitz.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I wouldn't even mind McCarthy's defense of Fitz if it didn't come wrapped in smarmy sermonizing like this on the prerequisites for bail pending appeal:
McCarthy may have trouble being honest with himself, but thanks anyway, I'll do without the projection and what I don't think intends as an editorial "we." Just gag me with a spoon.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 15, 2007 at 12:47 AM
tsk9...
WELL Rich -- it's funny you should say this...because the whole episode - in fact the basis of their Civil suit - is predicated in loss of income etc. - it harmed them so drastically, destitute and unemployable...
Not to mention all that attention-she is supposed to be a secret. Even if her book is crap she could get paid if the CIA declines to allow her to publish-it might be easier to settle it out of court.
Also: re: the Fitz going to Niger, that looks like a VIPS op- a Vincent Cannistraro special.
And nice find that Heisberg is a pretty big Schumer supporter. Jarch Capital LLC, another black box to add to the mix probably a node between other front compaines.
And a quick idea: I have been thinking that a lot a people are researching the Wilson-Plame story from different angles. Has anyone thought of doing a closed group wiki-an invitation only collaboration? The information could be put on a secure server and it could have section editors, researchers, writers, etc...I'm not sure how something like that would proceed and with a group collobration "a tragedy of the commons affect" can take hold in the writing.
Something less prone to wikihijackers and trolls, a place where the disjointed aspects of the story can find a home [like Rocco's different findings], and a place where someone with some database and graphical talent [freetime and money] can make relational databases of the different aspects of the story [ie build something like a "JOE WILSON-space" that contains all the findings and build maps of how he relates to different places, groups, individuals].
Just a thought
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 15, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Sara:
In case you never got an answer to the timing question you were asking earlier, I suspect Jeralyn was talking about how long the actual, offical appeal would take, not a presumably speedy decision on whether Judge Walton's decision on denying bond will be reversed or left alone.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 15, 2007 at 01:15 AM
RichatUF: I can create a Wiki on my blog using software builtin to Expression Engine, I don't know if other blog software has a similar feature. I haven't activated the feature since I didn't have anything I thought needed a Wiki. I just went to another blog that has activated the feature and it looks like it would be useful. But not as useful as a real database that could be searched with any combination of data. That would need some kind of form for input that would include fields for primary names and secondary names, places, companies, dates, links, etc. It would also need a large field where an entire article could be uploaded and attached to records within the database. The hard part is developing a comprehensive data entry form/vehicle that ends up being useful to the researcher.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 15, 2007 at 01:18 AM
Thanks JMH, that makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 15, 2007 at 01:23 AM
Rich
Also: re: the Fitz going to Niger, that looks like a VIPS op- a Vincent Cannistraro special.
it does and please do not forget the Jason Leopold - Joe Wilson love connection . The dynamite duo masters of mis-information to "press" on this. Larry is a "TruthOut" contributor or board member or something too.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 01:28 AM
Larry is a "TruthOut" contributor or board member or something too.
OOPS silly me - or honorary blowhard.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 01:30 AM
Kristof pastes the President for not pardoning Libby.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/749vayto.asp
Posted by: clarice | June 15, 2007 at 01:41 AM
--Kristof pastes--
Clarice, You'll give us heart attacks all.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 01:49 AM
Sara...
But not as useful as a real database that could be searched with any combination of data. That would need some kind of form for input that would include fields for primary names and secondary names, places, companies, dates, links, etc. It would also need a large field where an entire article could be uploaded and attached to records within the database. The hard part is developing a comprehensive data entry form/vehicle that ends up being useful to the researcher.
That is my problem-I was looking at an i2 solution however that is a bit out of my price range, but it does include the graphical interface I'm looking for.
I suppose basic principles are what is needed and how deep would I want to go. I wanted to go with the database option because that could be built and researched in really creative ways. [The database part is not where I would be of much use]. Also I thought a "Joe Wilson" or "Plame" search engine [an entire universe of only Plame-would gravity be the same] would be a useful jumping off point for all the different angles. I was thinking the different aspects could be tasked to subject matter experts.
Thanks for your input
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 15, 2007 at 01:51 AM
KristoL--good night my eyes are pasting shut..thanks for the catch, tx.
Posted by: clarice | June 15, 2007 at 01:56 AM
Via Fox Online news: Reputed Klansman James Ford Seale is found guilty of kidnapping and conspiracy in the 1964 deaths of two black teenagers in southwest Mississippi.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 15, 2007 at 02:00 AM
RichatUF: I can create data forms within Front Page, but they are more for entering data for things like meetings, or memberships, etc. What we need is software like I had when I worked for the Congressman that let us keep many different kinds of records, i.e., contributors, volunteers, and the various personal info attached to each like what fundraisers attended, comments, what jobs volunteered for, when, where, etc. Or the type I use for genealogy, which not only gives me several different ways to enter the info under headings like Birth, death, marriage, etc, but allows for notes attached to each field of entry and then will allow searching all forms, fields, or combinations and also compiles all the info in graph form or in a narrative form for printing or distribution. Unfortunately custom database software can be very expensive.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 15, 2007 at 02:10 AM
I was rereading Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olsen and was struck by the following comment, which could have been written with Fitz's investigation in mind:
Posted by: MJW | June 15, 2007 at 02:58 AM
Morning everyone!
Posted by: Jane | June 15, 2007 at 07:13 AM
Clarice:
I'm glad to see soe at NRO aren't sitting still for his B.S> any longer.
Well.
I question the timing!
Please note that the NRO exchanges took place AFTER Sara called them out on their silence upthread.
Also, I was hoping someone from Bench Memos at NRO would weigh in on the constitutional issues especially regarding the appointment. Not the political stuff at all ... the legal stuff.
Sara, could you call them out next?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 15, 2007 at 07:53 AM
Good job on your AT piece, Clarice. No Bond for Libby
NRO put it in their "Web Briefing" compilation on the Corner...
You are surrounded by Gerard Baker in the London Times above and Byron York in The Hill below...
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 15, 2007 at 08:25 AM
Morning everyone!
That it is!
And Frrrrriday!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 15, 2007 at 08:40 AM
Boy it must just SUCK to be Greg Sergent in his hole with his big old shovel...
does raise questions about whether its placement and headline were overblown.
Please. My sides are aching from laughing so hard at this.
I'm sorry but this is delicious how the lefty bogs are forced to defend this because they got busted Townhousing it!
NOW it's ALLL Politico's fault for having been right and now the Lefties want to "context" it and defend it.
http://www.memeorandum.com/
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 08:42 AM
McCarthy at NRO continues covering for his friend Fitzgerald this morning.
1) I've noticed that he *never* addresses issues against Fitzgerald. For McCarthy, Fitzgerald is always above reproach. It's much better to direct attention away from the real problem.
2) McCarthy ignorantly (or is it deceptively) equates being interested in Joe Wilson with being interested in Mrs. Joe Wilson. Thus McCarthy mischaracterizes the testimony in the same way the MSM has throughout.
3) Another laughable assertion is McCarthy painting the ultra-liberal, hate-Bush-and-Cheney, D.C. jury as sympathetic to Libby but helpless to clear him because after all, there was such overwhelming evidence.
The overwhelming evidence essentially was a slew of witnesses who sort of, kind of remembered, maybe. When all those witnesses were added together, their testimony was just *so* powerful.
Posted by: Paul | June 15, 2007 at 08:46 AM
Paul
It's pretty telling on many levels that McCarthy does not make his email addy available for reader response.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 15, 2007 at 08:58 AM
See, all the evidence Fitz presented, depite MINOR FOIBLES is actually solid so Libby's claim that his discrepencies were also FOIBLES is so so clearly ridiculous!
No mention of course that the physical evidence supports Libby's story somewhat better than the Fitz version. Cooper's notes, the INR memo, and appearance of documented OVP interest only after the Wilson Op Ed.
How McCarthy inflates Harlow and Grenier into 6 or 7 consultations reveals McCarthy's understanding of the testimony is weak because he didn't bother to look past his buddy Fitz' descriptions of it, or else McCarthy's POV is inconsistent with the real world.
Posted by: boris | June 15, 2007 at 08:59 AM
the benefit of the doubt on the one count where the evidence was arguably equivocal
That Cooper's testimony supports the Fitz version, while his notes support Libby's version is arguably equivocal as evidence. WTF?
Unexpected evidence that shows up later in an "investigation" which supports Libby's supposed lie and should not even exist based on the Fitz version, is arguably equivocal in the same sense that an iceberg was arguably related to the sinking of the Titanic.
Posted by: boris | June 15, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Reed Seligman is testifying live right now. It is failry amazing.
Posted by: Jane | June 15, 2007 at 09:29 AM