MSNBC Question of the Day
Iran nuclear threat: How should it be handled?
Diplomatically
83%
Militarily
17%
* 13504 responses

Makes you wonder if what these polls are counting now is freeping and counter-freeping.

“Abrahams, who has a vast knowledge of improbable scientific literature, compares Gier’s work to that of two Cornell scientists who showed that one attribute of extreme incompetence is “that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent.” The study, titled “Unskilled and Unaware of It,” demonstrated that people who scored, on average, at the 12th percentile in tests of humor, grammar and logic assessed themselves to be, on average, at the 62nd percentile. Incompetence at the extreme is a double-whammy, the authors declare: “Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.” (Which explains Washington, in a nutshell.)” [Emphasis added.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..70_pf.html

What more can we say?

Oh, I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[from: My Aim Is True - (The Angels Want To Wear My) Red Shoes]
On the DeLay thing, Christy’s way ahead of me. I’m still trying to work past “disgusted”. It’s just astonishing that this guy, even having been thoroughly disgraced and being thoroughly unrepentant, is still being considered for any position of trust in government.

On topic- I’ve mentioned before I find it starnge but not strange what blurbs I hear in the wee hours on CNN or MSNBC that don’t ever seem to be repeated. Yesterday it was that Delay had decided against trying for the OMB job. Perhaps to focus on his legal defense, ya think? Heh

This morning the blurb was that Brownie has decided against giving assistance or counceling with his new position (company?) to New Orleans afterall. Did anyone else catch either of these news blurbs?

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
4.4%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
7.6%

I don’t know.
1.8%

anon says:
April 12th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Libby implies Bush is a liar …
‘Based on the government’s articulated motive theory, the defense is also entitled to investigate the Administration’s response to the leak, such as any alleged threats by the President to fire officials who were involved. For example, if documents indicate that notwithstanding the President’s public statements about the leak investigation, Mr. Libby had no reason to fear losing his job, the defense is entitled to production of such documents

Now, a defense lawyer is going to argue in the alternative (it didn’t happen, if it did happen, it wasn’t me, if it was me, I had a good reason, if I didn’t have a good reason, I may have been crazy, …) but this was a pretty interesting assertion to spell out IMO.

Lhp said, Gave a very quick skim and this all off the cuff, but did you notice how much they contracted their discovery demand? In the “compromise†section of the brief, they basically gut their original demand.
Later on they argue that they are really entitled to the whole of their original demand, but any judges chambers is going to seize on an admission or waiver like that and run with it. Any judge with half a brain avoids making a decision when the parties don’t force it. So, if one side concedes something, you grab it and go (unless they don’t have the standing to concede or some other anomaly).

That struck me last night as well. I think it goes to the context of the alignment issue. Procedurally, they are correct on how the alignment should be addressed. I wondered at the time of the Memorandum opinion about the “free flow” language that seemed to be going by without comment (I am just not patient enuf!) and I thought it might mean the various offices really were more on board with the Prosecutor, bc alignment does have an affect on production duties/responsibilities.

IMO, Fitzgerald raised it where he did as a heads up to the judge and Team Libby that he was going to be going more into this if and as required now that he had the President’s office (and the status of subordinate DOJ officers) floating out there. I’m positive Fitzgerald knew they would raise the procedural issue and Walton seems like he would “by the book” it, if it weren’t for that lovely compromise offer tucked in the Reply.

Team Libby could have done two things. Pitched a fit (procedurally incorrect plus they are too aligned and Judge already ruled and exception should have been taken and ….)
or do what they did – go through the motions (basically a sentence on the procedural issue) but offer a compromise that the judge will have a hard time turning down and that keeps a record from developing, this early on, as to just why the other offices are not, actually, aligned with the Prosecutor. Once “too much” is out on that front, I think the President has less reason for pardon.

The compromise offered also, imo, speeds up Team Libby’s access to the Rove et al info that the judge is willing to let them have and which could be tied up for quite a bit longer as they duke it out over alignment. They are chomping to get to “show me yours” and it really seems they are angling for WH attention all through the filing. All jmo, but the alignment bits and pieces have caught my interest since the original ruling.

I got a kick, too, out of the Wells sealed declaration. Poor Ari – they mention the Africa trip and file a sealed declaration.

I also enjoy watching Safavian discovery rulings being trotted into Walton’s court (second time now – first time he didn’t seem very swayed). I can just see the Supreme Court cases now – US v. Cheney, citing to US v. Rove; US v. Rove citing to US v. Libby, US v. Libby citing to US v. Safavian … OK, I can’t really see it, but it was fun to pretend I could.