Per a new court filing we can add Mark T. Stancil to the roster of the Libby defense team. The honorable Mr. Stancil got his law degree in 1999, so we will peg him as a toiler rather than a star on this.
And I have been advised that the Libby appeal of Walton's decision to deny bail pending Libby's appeal, a 122 page .pdf, has been filed. [Here we go: (Libby Appeal, 122 page .pdf)] [html version]. However, I cannot find it on PACER at either the Criminal or Appellate level. If some legal eagle wants to provide me with a clue or two, that would be lovely.
Thanks to Clarice, and I still want to know how she did that.
UNSOLVED MYSTERIES: At the PACER site for appeals courts I did find this utterly mysterious order (1 page .pdf) dismissing the Libby case as of Dec 27, 2006. Uhh, Happy New Year, Scooter, but why did we go through the charade of a trial?
If I had to guess (and it appears that I do), I would say it is either an early April Fool's gag from the court or, with slightly higher probability, a dismissal of a particular aspect of some CIPA appeal.
Gee, I would hate to think Libby's defense team missed this.
SKIMMING THE APPEAL: The defense cites three major questions they consider to be close - (1) the constitutionality of the Fitzgerald appointment; (2) the denial of a memory expert; (3) and the inability of the defense to call Andrea Mitchell. The appeals occupy about 20 pages; the balance is exhibits, including a transcript of the June 14 2007 bail hearing.
Re the Fitzgerald appointment, they make several points but do emphasize the CIPA issue discussed here. However, let me toss a bone to the prosecution - in footnote 2, page 9 the defense explains that they only learned after the trial that Fitzgerald had signed off on a CIPA affidavit. However, as noted previously, JustOneMinute readers had noticed an oddity in the signings last December 2006. Now, maybe the oddity we noticed is not quite the oddity being mooted by the defense, but the prosecutor might want to nail this down - its something to watch for in the prosecution response, anyway. [OR EVEN BETTER _ Fitzgerald noted that 6(A) filing was on PACER during oral arguments - p. 58/122 of .pdf)].
I emailed it to you at your hotmail account, TM.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 06:01 PM
As you folks (or at least Clarice) seem to have an inside line with the defense team, have you landed a copy of Libby's D.C. Circuit application for bail pending appeal? AP has it, but quoted a less-than-illuminating except.
Posted by: SDangerfield | June 19, 2007 at 06:10 PM
A reader sent it to me after it was filed and we are trying to get it up and converted to html format, . I hate pdf files and cannot use them,
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 06:16 PM
I've got it now. MSNBC has a link to it:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070607_Libby_Release_Filing.pdf
(Sorry, posting links is NOT something I know how to do . . . we all have our weaknesses!)
All the Best,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 06:30 PM
Well, being that the pdf is an image and not text, I had to manually type this in, so any errors or typos are solely mine.
But I think I like this Roy Englert guy....from p. 21:
I, Roy T. Englert, Jr., certify that two copies of the foregoing
Application for Release Pending Appeal were served by hand and with
middle finger raised with courtesy copies by electronic mail on
the 19th day of June, upon:
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 06:38 PM
Ralph's MSNBC Link
[Note - this looks like the Libby filing with Walton from last week. (and the URL is a helpful confirmation)
The main post now includes a link to the new filing.]
Posted by: boris | June 19, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Well, I was locked out for a while but I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaack. Honestly, typepad is giving me fits.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 06:46 PM
Well, I was locked out all afternoon.
I don't know who I Blame™ yet. But when I figure it out, he/she/they may have to answer for some property damage.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 06:53 PM
I just read the filing and now I wait with baited breath for the JOM Legal Eagles to tell me what they think.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Some of you will love this:
From The Wide Awakes:
The Other Fitzmas
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Boris,
Thanks!
I've got to learn how to do that!
All the Best,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 07:10 PM
How to code a web link
Your Text Label
Posted by: SlimGuy | June 19, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Durn that didn't work like I intended lets try again
How to code a web link
Your Text Label
Posted by: SlimGuy | June 19, 2007 at 07:24 PM
How to code a web link
< followed by letter a then use href=" site Url "> Your Text Label and close with < followed by /a>
Posted by: SlimGuy | June 19, 2007 at 07:28 PM
SlimGuy,
Thanks.
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 07:31 PM
There's a nice dig at Walton in footnote 1 on page 7 (p12 of the pdf). They point out that Morrison was required by statute to follow DOJ regs, and that that was crucial to the decision in that case.
They then say that both the Libby team and the amici pointed out this fact to Walton, but he never responded to it.
Posted by: PatrickR | June 19, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Lucianne just posted something from Byron York, via the Corner, on the issue of Libby's freedom pending appeal. He begins by recounting what he said about the prospects a couple of days ago (Bush not inclined to act) and updates himself. It's short enough that I'll just paste it here:
"If I were asked the question today, all of 48 hours later, I might say it a bit differently. First, I think it is absolutely certain that the president will not take any action on Libby's behalf during the relatively short period in which a federal appeals court is considering Libby's emergency request to stay out of jail while the appeal of his conviction goes forward. If the court were to let Libby remain free, I think it's safe to say the White House would take no action as Libby awaited the final result of his appeal. If, on the other hand — as some observers think likely — the appeals court denies Libby's emergency request, meaning that he will have to report to jail by, say, the end of summer, I now think it is possible that the president would step in to assure that Libby does not go to jail. I'm not sure what form that action would take — perhaps a commutation or delay of the sentence without an outright pardon — but there now seems to be a real possibility that Libby will not go to jail while his appeal is considered."
Posted by: Other Tom | June 19, 2007 at 07:34 PM
Tom I posted that article by York with link in the previous thread.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Ralph
Sara recommended something a few threads back I am using now that eliminates accidents with malformation of web links simply due to typo errors.
It's a addon for Firefox called Xinha Here .
Once you install it, just right click on the JOM comment box and type in your comment then highlight the portion of your text where you want to imbed the link , then click the link icon at the top of the page and paste your url into the popup window.
When done , then hit apply at the bottom of the window and then submit the comment to JOM.
The stuff in the comment box will look funky because it has all the html imbedded codes carried along with your posting info.
Posted by: SlimGuy | June 19, 2007 at 07:52 PM
Quick reaction:
First, thanks for getting it out so quickly.
The brief is understated and well done.
The "close question" issue is immediately tied into the statutory "substantial" question language in Section 3143(b) with a quick cite to U.S. v. Perholtz, a 1987 DC Circuit case.
Then, three "close questions" are briefly but artfully explained:
1. The appointment question (with the CIPA argument set out as evidence of Fitz's use of AG/Asst AG/Deputy AC only authority).
2. The exclusion of the daily summaries of Libby's activities because in part because Libby did not take the stand.
3. The exclusion of the Andrea Mitchell testimony based on a case denying prosecutors the ability to call witnesses who have made out of court exculpatory statements for the purpose of impeaching them in front of the jury.
The transcript of the bail hearing is particularly interesting. Judge Walton's comments on Fitz's affidavit supporting his CIPA redactions seemed to me to be quite long and defensive -- and not particularly persuasive. He tried to make the point that the issue was not raised until after trial, but it turns out no one knew the Affidavit was signed by Fitz and not the AG, an Assistant or a Deputy until the Affidavit was unsealed after the trial was over.
Posted by: vnjagvet | June 19, 2007 at 07:53 PM
from the Libby appeal...still reading it but this caught my eye
fn 8 is the relevant Fitzgerald quote from the trial
Did those guys read JOM before writing it?
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 07:54 PM
GRRRR
after the right click select xinha here from the context menu then continue on.
Posted by: SlimGuy | June 19, 2007 at 07:54 PM
OT
But I am outraged and need to vent. Is there a more disgusting human being on this Earth than one James Earl Carter? You would think that a one term failed President with much to be ashamed and certainly be humbled about, would have enought sense to keep his big mouth shut and just live off the magnamity of the salary for life he still draws... GRRR
Posted by: gmax | June 19, 2007 at 08:07 PM
vnj
Sleazy affidavit file guy number 3 - Miller, Russert, this. Why is he hiding crap?
Fitz needs to be investigated.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 19, 2007 at 08:07 PM
SlimGuy,
More Thanks.
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 08:08 PM
In the report of the oral argument, Libby's counsel noted they hadn't seen the affidavit until May (per fdl).TM wasn't sure if he meant May 2006 or May of this year. It is good to have that clarified.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:14 PM
I have the appeal, and exhibits "approximately" converted to html after running them through OmniPage Pro 15.
The formatting of the pages is NOT an exact match, but the OCR conversion was very good except for some hand written notes, etc.
If anyone has a way of posting it so that anyone interested can download it, I'll be glad to send them a copy (or I can send copies to individuals.)
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 08:15 PM
From the Mitchell part...
Was it Fleisher's testimony that he balbbed after the gaggle and that it was Dickenson and Gregory whom he blabbed to? NBC has kept Gregory quiet...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 08:17 PM
And Walton knew before the trial, right? And saw no problems, right?
Can this be added to the argument that Walton failed to act constitutionally on this affidavit as well as other things?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 19, 2007 at 08:20 PM
Ralph I could not open what you sent me and now I can't get onto Yahoo mail.
I'm about to kill myself. I'll keep looking to see if anyone can post this in html no matter how messed up that might be.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:23 PM
From Rich's quote:
Mr. Libby expects to contend on appeal that the admission of newspaper articles to show, through a lengthy chain of questionable inferences, Mr. Libby’s purported focus on Ms. Wilson was wholly at odds with the exclusion of defense evidence concerning the matters that, as the Schmall and Hannah testimony shows, actually commended his attention at the relevant times.
And from Walton at the hearing, well scratch that, let's go to Cathy quoting Walton as a joke, er making a joke:
Rich asks:
Did those guys read JOM before writing it?
I say yes. I mean, they may be lawyers, but they ain't stupid.
I keed.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Ralph,
Go here, click my name in the column on the right and send me the translation. I'll post it on a subsite a few minutes after I receive it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2007 at 08:28 PM
I'm sorry to raise a point that sounds like a lot of lawyer-talk inside baseball, but I honestly do believe that Walton denied bail not because he thought there was no close, substantial question, but because he (erroneously) tried to predict how that question would be resolved. That was my clear understanding of his comments during the live-blogging of the hearing on Libby's motion. Does this seem correct? I think I expressed at the time that he was using the "likelihood of success" standard that is applied in cases of temporary injunctions.
I may also be confused on another matter here. The 20-odd page brief dated June 7 is the one on which Walton has already ruled, right? I understand that the entire appeal brief (100-plus pages) is also now available. Question: do we now have access to the separate, shorter papers that Libby will be filing with the D.C. Circuit in conncection with his emergency appeal of the denial of bail?
Sorry to be so slow, folks. Worse yet, this degree of confusion is present with the cocktail hour not even having begun--although that infirmity will be taken care of without further delay. Perhaps things will be clearer in an hour or so.
Posted by: Other Tom | June 19, 2007 at 08:30 PM
God bless you Rick.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:30 PM
The answer to para 1 OT is yes, that is my belief, too.
As for para 2 I don't know what you are talking about. I think all he has to file with the Dist Ct at this point is a notice of appeal--a form basically.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:32 PM
H&R...
Fast...too fast...
I haven't even clipped the part of United States v. Safavian, No. 05-CR-037, 2006 (p.3, Libby Release Filing)....being instructive...
Clarice brought that up a couple days back...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Clarice,
I just realized that I didn't send you all that was neede (I don't use html stuff that often) I'm sending you what should be the "complete" package now, and it opens in IE explorer without any problem, and the text can be individually selected, copied, etc.
Sorry about the confusion.
All the Best,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Ralph, you keep sending me stuff but I'm afraid I cannot get into yahoo mail and yahoo is completely screwed up so I can't even report it.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:39 PM
OT...
...Walton denied bail not because he thought there was no close, substantial question, but because he (erroneously) tried to predict how that question would be resolved...
IANAL: However, he was pretty clear during the hearing that he didn't think the CIPA stuff or Mitchell was close. On the appointments issue he folded Morrison and Edmond into a jail cell. I looked at it as him ruling since his reasoning was flawless (removable=supervison), therefore the question wasn't close [he muttered something from the bench about how he needed to rule that the appoinment issue wasn't close before he took a recess]. He never got to the second part of if it were ruled differently it would result in reversal. My take FWIW
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 08:47 PM
Other Tom,
I'm going to give Walton credit for guile.
From where he sits, if the president tosses the case, he's home free. There won't be an "upper court" disclosure of his errors.
What's the chances for that?
Hard to say. The DC circuit has found a way to be on "summer vacation" when it isn't even summer.
Yes, there are options on the table. And, increased curiosity. Again. Probably after Walton's life had returned to "normal."
Besides, if it's true that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is set to retire; that opens up the Supreme's "appointments" to the president's review. Robed wonders will be paying attention to that.
Where, here, for guile, Walton chose a road where there's at least an option of a presidential toss. That. And, he took lots of satisfaction in hurting Wells. These are the quirks that make outcomes ahead seem so interesting, even to the lay public.
Posted by: Carol_Herman | June 19, 2007 at 08:47 PM
Clarice,
Let me know when it's working or where else you'd like it sent.
All the Best,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Please send it to Rick to print. I really am unable to deal with this any more.
I can read and alayze it but this technical stuff is driving me up a wall. Go to the site he gave upthread. He'll post it there and we can all work with it. Thanks again for all your work.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Clarice, I've been under the impression that in the very near term (well short of having the actual appeal heard) the Libby team was going to appear on an emergency basis before either a single judge or a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, simply seeking an order granting bail during the pendency of the appeal. I've also been assuming that they will file papers in connection with that effort, obviously similar in substance to the 20-some pager they filed with Walton, but different in that it will recount the fact that Walton has ruled, and will argue that he got it wrong--and maybe even that he applied the wrong standard in doing so.
What am I missing?
Posted by: Other Tom | June 19, 2007 at 08:52 PM
As best these tired eyes can tell, the MSNBC link offered above is to the brief Libby filed with Walton. The main post now has a link to the *new* Libby filing addressed to the appeals court.
And talk about the biter bit - Fleischer's testimony that he leaked to Gregory was uncontested and unrebutted. Fitzgerald presumably wanted to save Fleischer's credibility on the "weird lunch" story, but... how can he argue that Gregory did not know? Fleischer was *his* witness!
So, as the defense argues, if Gregory knew then Mitchell knew. This does not even seem like a hard one for the appeals court (but I haven't been right yet...)
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2007 at 08:53 PM
OT you are missing the emergency appeal that TM posted in this post above. It was filed today.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Yes, OT the 122 pg pdf filing is the filing with the Circuit Ct. We have been involved in a dizzying to me effort to get this converted to html formal and published so we can work with it.
If you belong to a bar association try to persuade them that it would be useful to have these things available to the public in some editable form for explanation to them.
If people only knew how damned hard it is to write a useful piece from one of thee daned pdf files briefs!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:57 PM
Re Gregory--it will be amusing to see Fitz argue the court should disregard the uncontested evidence from his star immunized witness.........
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 08:59 PM
Rick,
I just sent the html to you. My email has been funny today as well. No problem receiving, but intermittent problems accessing the mail server to send.
All the Best,
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 09:05 PM
--how can he argue that Gregory did not know? Fleischer was *his* witness!--
Well, that is a conundrum. He'll use Dickerson's denial and argue with a straight face Fliesher was misremembering? - but then what exactly did Ari need immunization from then?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 19, 2007 at 09:11 PM
From the filing:
2-3 weeks is shorter than was the guess (6-8 weeks, IIRC).
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 09:13 PM
Dickerson's denial is not in evidence.
All that is in evidence is his star witness' testimony; the what one of us knows the other knows. Period.
He made this record. It's his to deal with now.
If you credit him on Gregory it is damned hard to justify keeping Andrea off the stand.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 09:14 PM
we don't know how long it takes the Bureau to designate, hit.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Thanks Clarice.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 19, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Thanks, Ralph. I couldn't keep all formatting correct but here it is in HTML.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2007 at 09:21 PM
Re: "One couldn't know until after the trial, that Fitz was signing CIPA things only the AG has statutory authority to sign," is false. Fitz signed the CIPA 6(a) certification in September 2006 - See Doc 134-2.
Posted by: cboldt | June 19, 2007 at 09:24 PM
cboldt, regardless of when he signed it, defense counsel says Walton allowed them to see it only in May of this year.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 09:26 PM
Walton allowed them to see it only in May of this year.
Isn't that their point, that Walton/Fitz kept it under seal so that it wasn't until after the trial that they knew it was signed by Fitz?
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 09:28 PM
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Rick.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Sara, Slimguy, thanks for the Xinha Here recommendation! I just installed it and I'm trying it out for the first time, using the bottom bar option. I used to open up a separate html editor when I needed to do some formatting, but this is even handier.
That is nice that the defense is able to point out that Walton didn't even respond to their point about Morrison and DoJ regs. Ridiculous.
Very true, JM Hanes. But remember, in a criminal investigation, there is no such thing as "unofficial" contact. If an investigator or prosecutor or anyone else employed by the government contacts you, it's official. So, count on it, no matter how brief the FBI's contact with Mitchell was, there should be a record of it. And there should be notes.
Captain Ed takes note of Cohen's article here. I don't actually give a rat's ass what Captain Ed thinks--he has no clue what he's talking about in re Libby--I'm just using that as an excuse to try out the link function in Xinha Here, because it sounds more convenient than in my other editors.
Posted by: anduril | June 19, 2007 at 09:32 PM
we don't know how long it takes the Bureau to designate
Well sure, and I certainly don't discount the idea that Libby's counsel is dramatizing the situation, but they wouldn't put that in there expecting people to think their word "shortly" meant 4-5 weeks (to keep a total of 6-8 weeks)...I think their point is to convey the idea that Libby ain't got 6-8 weeks to deal with here...
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 09:34 PM
-- cboldt, regardless of when he signed it, defense counsel says Walton allowed them to see it only in May of this year. --
There is more than one "it." CIPA 6(a) precedes CIPA 6(c)(2).
Posted by: cboldt | June 19, 2007 at 09:41 PM
Clarice,
You're welcome. Ralph did all the work. I wish I could have kept the formatting, the fns being in the same size type is distracting.
You might want to print out the 20 pages to make it easier to work with.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2007 at 09:41 PM
Rick, Clarice,
The conversion was quite fast, considering the size of the document. If this is an acceptable level of accuracy (and I think that it's 99%+), I'll be glad to convert any that come up in the future.
This was the first large document that I'd done with OmmiPage 15, and I'm VERY impressed with its OCR engine.
Thanks to everyone on this blog for all of the stimulating comments.
Posted by: Ralph | June 19, 2007 at 09:49 PM
OT horn tooting -- left a little comment over at protein wisdom last night (hint: Joe Wilson makes an appearance) and it generated like a 45 million word Jeff essay - Linky -- I'll be occupied for a while learning how my humble contribution spawned this great mind - and what better idea's he has made of it.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 19, 2007 at 09:51 PM
cboldt, regardless of when he signed it, defense counsel says Walton allowed them to see it only in May of this year.
They knew of the 6(a) certification in September. The December 6(c) certification (copy in appendix D of the appeal) was the one filed under seal. The point is that they knew earlier he was signing CIPA stuff that the act requires the AG sign . . . though there is an argument that while the 6(a) certification is a bit of a formality, the 6(c) one had a significant impact on the proposed substitutions allowed. But since [most of?] those weren't allowed anyway (when Libby decided not to take the stand), it's hard to see this as a big issue.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 19, 2007 at 09:51 PM
There is more than one "it." CIPA 6(a) precedes CIPA 6(c)(2).
cboldt: consider this the denseness of a nonlawyer, because I don't understand the point you are making.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 09:51 PM
Is there a more disgusting human being on this Earth than one James Earl Carter?
Yes, but one would have to think a minute to come up with an example.
(Mugabe. Idi Amin. The Castro broters. That guy driving 40 in the left lane of a 65 speed limit highway this afternoon during Boulder rush hour.)
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 19, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Thank you Rick--I did print it out. I know ralph did a lot of the work, but I thanked him repeatedly before and you not at all.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Thanks for straightening me out on what these various briefs are. I just misread the description of the 122-pager.
Fascinating stuff. Can't wait to learn who is going to hear and decide it. Dare we hope for, say, Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh?
Posted by: Other Tom | June 19, 2007 at 10:07 PM
...but then what exactly did Ari need immunization from then?
Ari denied leaking to Pincus but Pincus contradicted him. So let's see, Ari needed immunity because he was sure he leaked to someone, but couldn't remember who. The PERFECT witness for a memory trial.
And re Walton's notion that Mitchell testimony might prompt the jurors to actually draw inferences - dare we ask about the famous Wilson op-ed marked up by Cheney?
Fitzgerald wanted the jury to infer that Libby had discussed these points with Cheney. In his grand jury testimony, Libby denied it, and, when asked why Cheney had made these notes, suggested that Fitzgerald ask Cheney.
Fitzgerald did interview Cheney pre-trial, but never called him. And Walton was OK with that?
Oh, I am just winding myself up now. But I will now Boldly P{redict - *IF* their are no scheduling problems that keep this bail appeal from being heard, Libby will win this round and stay out on appeal - in my mind, these questions are all close enough to keep him out.
And eventually, he will win on the constitutionality and the Mitchell (and maybe the memory expert, to sweep the board).
Today marks the turning of the tide!
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2007 at 10:11 PM
I'm having a bourbon. I suspect you've got something better.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 19, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Posted by: cathyf | June 19, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Amen on your predictions, Tom.
InTrade has Libby's strongest supporter among the Presidential candidates, Fred Thompson, now leading for being the Republican nominee.
Posted by: Paul | June 19, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Clarice,
What we need is a copy of the special CIA regs pertaining to the Hatch Act. I think that Davis is missing a bet by not looking into whether Plame's adventures should put her right next to Doan when Wartman fires up again.
The CIA regs go beyond the Hatch Act (at least that's my understanding) and might be the basis for Val's last year being spent at home.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Janice Brown would be perfection . TM, I so hope you are right. (I despaired in the Duke case and then that marvelous young lawyer worked his butt off to understand DNA testing, nabbed Meeham and with that brought down that house of cards.)
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 10:18 PM
On page 45 of the .pdf is the bit where Walton explains the importance of an independent independent counsel. Sweet jiminy, I hope no appeals judge hurts himself/herself laughing.
And when they are done laughing, I hope they make a note that two bucks plus Walton's concerns about fairness and public appearance gets a vente cafe latte at Starbucks. Back in court, the appointments clause still rules.
Or Congress could pass another Independent Counsel act. Or we could wait for Judge Walton to rule!
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2007 at 10:22 PM
TM notes some time ago that ANDREA MITCHELL had the scoop on the firing of Mary O McCarthy, too.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/cia_officer_sac.html
How cool is that? Woman has a hot line to Langley apparently.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 10:22 PM
from protein wisdom [by way of tsk9, YEA!]
I gave away the ending, but read it all. Good catch on the article tsk9.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Is Judge Walton really Col. Flagg?
"You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me."
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Re the 6(a) and 6(c) filings, in the transcript (p. 58 of .pdf) Fitzgerald makes the point that the September filing was made on pacer and should have been available (it was!).
This is classic on his supervision:
OK, world - when did he talk to Novak? When did he talk to Fleischer? What were the circumstances of those two chats?
Don't even ask about Russert and the FBI, and Fitzgerald's concealment of Russert's cooperation in both their filings.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2007 at 10:39 PM
hey folks anyone that thinks this case will turn on a constitutional question must be smoking crack. Look Ken Starr almost brought down a sitting prez and no repub i know cared in the least. The whole issue of a special prosecutor must be ended or solved by our Congress...and no case in a court will change that. Even Libby.
You guys got to know that..come on..Walton just thinks some lawyers are trying to blow smoke up his ass..Even a circuit court would laugh behind closed doors...
We must end this law..But no court will, it takes an act of congress....
I know TM, OT, H&R and the rest of you are experienced bloggers and legal masterminds.
But from the cornfields here..There is a better chance of snow in hell than the appeal going through and having success..
I'd put money on it...
I feel so bad for Libby and if Bush doesn't step up to the plate then you guy voted for a lame, secret laden, leader....
Come on Bush..Take on DC and get in front of a mic and blow away the opposition with strong and powerful words and defend your boy..else Quit.
sorry if i offended anyone but that's the way i feel.
Posted by: hoosierhoops | June 19, 2007 at 10:43 PM
My God! Where do you start with this guy? He doesn't have a clue about the Constitution.
Posted by: anduril | June 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Hoosierhoops, what law are you proposing should be done away with? The Independent Counsel act was not renewed. In Libby, everything is being done with a wink, a nod, and a sweeping letter from an Acting AG giving the full power of the AG to some shlub Assistant Attorney from Chicago with proviso for supervision by newspaper reports.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Sorry for my clipings above from the wrong filing.
This is good-
I wonder if the guy who wrote this was getting more angry with every keystroke.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 10:51 PM
OK, world - when did he talk to Novak? When did he talk to Fleischer? What were the circumstances of those two chats?
Even more telling, why did he insist Armitage keep his involvement with the Novak leak a secret? Are we supposed to believe that, if it had come out in Dec '03 that the primary leak had come from an anti-war State Department source, that Fitz would've had the same freedom of action in pursuing OVP minutiae? I think not.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 19, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Rich, these guys are sharp. They see that this is essentially a fraud on Congress! The wussy Reps were afraid to object, and the Dems were colluding behind the scenes with Comey--it was a fraud on Congress that the Dems wanted and the Reps were afraid to object to. This is what we have Courts of review for.
Posted by: anduril | June 19, 2007 at 10:54 PM
More error from Judge Waltonx (p. 77) - he really needs to base his rulings on something other than articles written by jurors that appear in HuffPo:
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 19, 2007 at 10:55 PM
hoosier:
I know TM, OT, H&R and the rest of you are experienced bloggers and legal masterminds.
OK, "H&R" and "legal mastermind" is perhaps a crazy idea...certainly positively unquestionably in the traditional literal sense.
Yet, I'm not in jail and not under investigation, so...perhaps it is slightly almost possibly believably true?
Sure, you have to bastardize the English language, but on that I AM an expert...so...you can kiss my sass.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 10:58 PM
When you read that section TM just posted, all I can think of is "what arrogance!" I sat on a jury for a murder trial and I can say categorically that jurors spend time on issues that the defense did not challenge, giving more weight to the prosecutor's argument when there isn't conflicting testimony by the defense. How can Walton even have a clue how the jury would have looked at Mitchell's testimony had she been allowed to testify and how they would have related that to any other testimony. And how can he predict that Russert's testimony (or anyone else's) would have been the same had Mitchell testified the way she originally stated in her early interviews.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM
You're too modest, hit. I'm going to bed early to write up the filing tomorrow.I can't stay up round the clock any more.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
anduril-
Rich, these guys are sharp. They see that this is essentially a fraud on Congress!
Frame it as a "bureaucratic despotism" argument. The appointment clause requires supervision and accountability to prevent an out-of-control bureaucracy from sprouting up. If Schumer et al. got their way, they would be harvesting fitzcutors by the bushel...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Cecil:
Even more telling, why did he insist Armitage keep his involvement with the Novak leak a secret?
Filed under wild fantasy: Can't someone get Bush to answer the question whether he would have stopped Fitz if he had known Armitage was the leaker?
Would be a nail in the supervision coffin.
And is as likely as [eh, too late, fill in your own favorite most unlikely scenario here]
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Clarice:
You're too modest, hit
You're right.
I am an F'N GURU on bastardizing the English language!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I had not heard of xintha but I use Faroke on my Linux laptop and bbtags on my XP computer.
SlimGuy, I worked on REXX and VMS for about two years after ten years on MVS. Now I do exclusively Linux / Unix.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 19, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Sure, you have to bastardize the English language, but on that I AM an expert...so...you can kiss my sass.
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2007 at 10
Sorry Hit& run I consider you a genius of the off the wall reference and insight to human nature...plus we are celebrating the boy being home before Iraq..so it is Crown & coke all around..never had a martini Hit...But nobody like it ..kiss my sass :)
Now Sara..Let's be clear about this ( as clear as possible) The law i speak of can be outlawed by Congress..period..No Fitz, No Starr..no one period..Not renewed? How about illegal?
But, Our luck America would elect another Nixon....So we lack balance to a special prosecutor law..
Posted by: hoosierhoops | June 19, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Sara-
How can Walton even have a clue how the jury would have looked at Mitchell's testimony had she been allowed to testify and how they would have related that to any other testimony...
ESP and newspapers-it was how the DOJ was keeping tabs on Fitz; it would probably worked for Walton re: Mitchell.
I suppose its getting late and I have done a quick read of the filing, and maybe some lawyers can help me out re: Mitchell. The defense has avoided the question of what her notes might have contained. I know that since she wasn't called that issue was completely closed off, but since it was argued in pre-trial, could that have been an additional data point; or since that was an issue never explored, it can't be brought up in the hypotheotical event of her testifying.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 11:16 PM
plus we are celebrating the boy being home before Iraq
Enjoy that time!!!
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 19, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Ditto hit's remark to hoosier.Bless your boy, honey.
Rich, as I recall the defense never saw those notes, only the judge did.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2007 at 11:26 PM
SlimGuy;
From the previous threads. I'm not that much of expert with computers or programming, but I can get by in a crunch. A few threads back, I was brainstorming an idea of a closed wiki- with some different types of search tools and edit functions. Specifcally, I wanted to build a "Plame-Wilson" space and use a model that I've been working on to see what would shake out. You are free to email me: richatuf at yahoo dot com if you can give me some pointers.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Congrats on your son coming home safe.
On your other point about "the law" -- I don't get your point unless you are saying that Congress needs to pass a law saying it can not pass a law about independent prosecutors/special prosecutors. Is that what you are saying? Since we don't have an independent counsel law right now, I don't see your point. The fact that Comey tried to get around the lack of law to create a special prosecutor, isn't that what makes it a Constitutional question? It seems that a law to prevent a law would be in the bailiwick of the Supremes.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | June 19, 2007 at 11:33 PM