Judge Reggie Walton has issued another opinion on motions made by Team Libby. A copy of the opinion can be found on the DC Federal courts website (PDF).
Jeralyn covered the opinion on TalkLeft yesterday. And Jane kicked a few things around as well yesterday – including Byron York’s inaccurate, petulant spin — and the fact that Fitz has the gift of snark.
The opinion stems from a May 5, 2006, status conference wherein a number of discovery motions and issues were argued before the court. We covered the hearing initially here — detailing information as to what a status conference is, among other things. Once the hearing transcript became available, we covered it in more depth here and here (The Cirque Du Soleil defense series of posts). At the time, I said this:
And all the knots in the world — tied or untied — don’t get around the ultimate questions: did Scooter Libby lie to the jury under oath? Repeatedly? Did Libby lie to the FBI during the investigation? Repeatedly? Did he do so to obstruct Fitzgerald’s investigation? Repeatedly?
That’s what the jury will be asked to answer. And that’s where the smokescreen doesn’t hold up for Scooter and Team Libby. None of the smoke has anything to do with whether Scooter lied and why. If he did not out Valerie Plame Wilson — why bother lying to the FBI and the Grand jury in the first place? Now that’s a question I’d love to see answered.
The judge appears to have agreed with this assessment for the most part. As you read through the spare eight-page opinion, you can feel his exasperation at having to cover and re-cover this ground beginning to show.
But let’s get to the meat of the order, shall we?
Scooter loses the bulk of his requests…again…to go on an unfettered fishing expedition through the government’s files (Although, admittedly, after the last discovery motion smackdown, it was a more tightly worded request for a fishing permit. See my previous analysis of a Fitz response brief on these issues here, here and here that was done prior to the judge’s order and see if Judge Walton doesn’t pretty much track Fitz’s characterization of discovery on this.)
As defense counsel, you know the judge is about to deny the bulk of your motion when the first page contains a paragraph which reads as follows (PDF):
The motion now before the Court seeks and array of documents through ten separately numbered requests. Before addressing the merits of these requests, it is helpful to set forth what this case is and is not about, as this reality defines the scope of discovery the defendant is entitled to receive. (Walton Op., p. 1) (emphasis mine)
Hello, Scooter and company, welcome to the reality based community.
The judge goes on to detail the charges within the four corners of the indictment against Mr. Libby, the possible charges that the Special Prosecutor is still investigating (and might have completed but for the obstruction and repeated lying for which Mr. Libby is charged, I might add), and then says this (PDF):
Rather, the only question the jury will be asked to resolve in this matter will be whether the defendant intentionally lied when he testified before the grand jury and spoke with FBI agents about statements he purportedly made to the three news reporters concerning Ms. Wilson’s employment. The prosecution of this action, therefore, involves a discrete cast of characters and events, and this Court will not permit it to become a forum for debating the accuracy of Ambassador Wilson’s statements, the propriety of the Iraq war or related matters leading up to the war, as those events are not the basis for the charged offenses. At best, these events have merely an abstract relationship to the charged offenses. (Walton Op., pp. 2-3) (emphasis mine)
Well, I’d say that’s a pretty clear explanation as to what is and is not on the table, wouldn’t you? And to me, this says that the judge will not permit this to become some dog and pony show media extravaganza, but that this prosecution will be conducted as every other prosecution of every other person who is charged with a crime is done, by and large, in the United States — which is to say that this will not be some OJ/Michael Jackson trial sideshow anomaly, but will, instead, be a criminal trial on the merits. Period.
The judge goes on to detail how the information regarding Amb. Wilson, his wife, and other witnesses and the defendant’s background, involvement, and otherwise will be used during trial. And darn it all if Judge Walton doesn’t expect everyone to follow the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence…just like every other attorney and every other defendant and every other US Attorney has to do in every other trial before every other court.
Not exactly a shocker, but for the naysayers out there, this is how things work in our system of justice. No matter how high your friendships may go, the laws apply equally.
More to come in Part II.
(Yeah, yeah, I know. I’ll use any excuse for a Sting pic…)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Fitz!
Uhhh . . . two new threads at once?
Two posts for the price of one!
rootz!
Tuesday is 6/6/6. Maybe we’ll get REAL lucky and all the obnoxious bastards will get raptured away. Here’s hoping!
Way EPU’d, and reposted from the Late Night thread (Proud Canadians unite!):
Boultbee’s bullshitting here.
[blockquote]”As July 1st is a Saturday, Canada Day is celebrated this year on June 30th, the day of the hearing…”[/blockquote]
Canada Day is always celebrated on July 1st, unless it falls on a Sunday in which case it is observed the following day.
He must be another one of those ‘Connie Black Canadians’…Only when convenient’.
As you read through the spare eight-page opinion, you can feel his exasperation at having to cover and re-cover this ground beginning to show.
Is there any way a judge can preemptively cut off such nonsense? I’m sure we don’t want to have judges just summarily rejecting motions, but if the same justification is used over and over, and the judge has convincingly rebutted it, can it be ruled out in any future motions?
If not, I hope Judge Walton is really good at cut and paste, because I think we’ll be seeing that same opinion from him many more times with just the date and a few details changed each time.
Thanks, Christy. Great post. It is very refreshing to see that Judge Walton is not willing to become Judge Ito in the situation. He’s applied a very firm and judicious hand so far and kept the bs to a minumum. It’s reassuring for me, and no doubt exasperating for Team Libby.
Redd- Does it look to you as if we are nearing the end of the discovery wars?
Well, now I’m really confused, because I thought I read elsewhere that Byron York (or his hair) said that this Walton ruling was a big smackdown of Fitz for not pursuing the “big case.” *g*
Oh, well, I think I’ll go with Christy on this one….
On another aspect of the investigation, I wanted to see if any folks familiar with investigation have an answer:
Once the CIA determined the Department of Justice should open a criminal investigation into the leaking of classified information (i.e. once Novak outed Valerie Plame), what would the first steps be?
Specifically, would the DoJ seek a warrant to wiretap the primary individual known to be involved (Novak)?
It dawned on me when Waas recently wrote that there were phone calls between Novak and Rove right about the time an announcement of the investigation was made (September 2003). Would the DoJ/FBI wiretap Novak? If so, when?
Thanks for the Fitz post…I was going through withdrawal earlier this week ;-)
Hey *ilson, much relieved to see you here. Last I heard they’re still after the shooter(s) near you. What news?
fun with Police song titles:
hey Scooter: Fitz has you “Wrapped Around his Finger”; he’s your “King of Pain”. “Truth Hits Everybody”; you’re asking for “Too Much Information”. time to “Rehumanize Yourself”
For Karl, “Bring on Indict” (bring on the night)
I appreciate the update. Good work!
However, no matter what the outcome of this case and who does or does not go to jail, this is just a sideshow. The essential corruption at the heart of our global system — what drives the BIG wheels — will remain unaffected.
Ken Lay gets convicted but also has a $160 million personal tax break windfall. THAT’s what I’m talking about. For all the good he’s doing, Fitz is just dust in the wind.
Christy – when I read the opinion, I thought Judge Walton’s irritation at having to remind Team Irving what the case was about was definitely beginning to show; I read it as the written equivalent of speaking with jaw clenched.
The mainstream coverage I saw yesterday was all framed in terms of the “major blow” this ruling represented. It might be just me, and how I chose to interpret the tone, but I kept having a “what are we supposed to do – feel sorry for the guy?” reaction. Oh, boo-hoo!
I’m not a lawyer, though I’ve been working with them for years (although in estate and trust law, we don’t see nearly as much litigation – although when we do, it’s usually some horrifically dysfunctional family meltdown triggered by someone’s death), but I have to think that the strategy Team Irving’s battery of high-priced lawyers is showcasing through these motions is indicative of a very weak defense. It’s clear they had hoped to make this about something else altogether, so three cheers to Walton for not playing along.
And, by the way, my daughter’s birthday is 6/6 – which is also the anniversary of D-Day – and while she exhibited some extremely devilish tendencies as both a toddler and a teenager, now that she is turning 23 we think she’s turned out to be a fine young waman (and a Democrat, to boot, so score one for our team!).
they are looking in my neighborhood for the shooters with the assault weapons…I live in what’s called The Near-Eastide of Indianapolis – it’s where the 7 family members were shot and where they think the shooters are holed up. The did catch one of the dudes half-a-mile east of me — the killings were half-a-mile south of me … luckily, cop cars are seen slowly cruising around…
fwiw, the 46201 zipcode is the Near-Eastside of Indianapolis…I’ve lived there for 30 years…I’m not scared but am a tad wary though…
Meanwhile- in other court actions:
The tittering (I admit, I participated) began early on in the cross-examination. Under relentless questioning, Safavian would not budge from his assertion that he expected the greens fees at St. Andrews — perhaps the most renowned golf course in the world — would not have been substantially more than the $135 charged by a top-quality course in eastern Maryland.
“When you learned the [St. Andrews] caddies got tipped $100,” the prosecutor asked, did that make Safavian wonder if the greens fees there were more than $135?
Safavian paused. “I didn’t think about it then,” he replied, “but that’s a valid point.”
The prosecutor paused and asked — with restrained but nonetheless theatrical incredulity: “That disparity just occurred to you this moment?”
Safavian conceded that yes, perhaps it did. Tittering ensued.
The chuckle monster appeared in the gallery moments later, when Safavian would not agree with the prosecutor that his caddy tips were usually paid for by the lobbyists on the trip. So the prosecutor asked Safavian if the other individuals on the trip had paid for his caddy tips.
“Did the congressman pay your caddy fees?”
“Not that I recall.”
Did Mr. Vinovich, a Ney staffer, pay them? (No.) What about Mr. Heaton, another Ney staffer? (No.)
“So it’s fair to say that if someone picked up your caddy’s fees, it was someone from [Abramoff lobbying firm] Greenberg Traurig?”
Yes, Safavian finally conceded. More quiet titters.
The prosecution had a photo-filled brochure of the hotel at which Abramoff, Ney, Safavian and the others stayed while playing golf in Scotland, which it introduced into evidence.
Zeidenberg put the first photograph on a projector, which displayed the picture — a luxurious dining room with many windows which appeared to look out on the green — on screens before the jurors and the gallery.
The prosecutor asked Safavian if the picture looked like the dining room of the hotel he stayed at. Sure, Safavian said, adding, “It looks like a typical hotel dining room.”
“Mr. Safavian,” the prosecutor said, “in your experience, that is a typical hotel dining room?” (Titters.)
(Linked at Raw Story)
Completely OT, but I caught msnbc’s Weekends with Maury & Connie and it was very good. They asked good questions and had great people on to answer them. I was surprised, and e-mailed encouragement.
Is some of the press coming back to life? Return of the Living Dead?
“At best, these events have merely an abstract relationship to the charged offenses.”
1. that’s got me laughing heartily…talk about a written “slap in the face, briskly done”. Oh my.
2. Well…..now, York, Tucker, O’Bierne, et al….is it yet time to SHUT UP with your whining about “no underlying crime, Fitz out of control” etc etc….a federal judge has just indicated that various background matters have nothing to do with these very serious charges brought in his court.
Ghostman
itwasntme– saw that too, and was especially impressed with Rick MacArthur, the publisher of Harper’s,who slammed the MSM and the administration’s lies! Lovely.
Two things: this is beginning to remind me of Rumsfeld approach to getting his way … by wearing down the opposition in the room on the part of Libby’s defense; ie let’s ask the same questions only this time we’ll just change fonts or put it in italics and make our questions “look” differently. I’m also struck by how this case will look in reverse, from an appeals court because of course that’s where it has a high likelihood of going. What would the appeals focus on. And of course, Fitz’s narrow approach/indictments against Libby is yet proven again the genius of Fitz and the Fed’l Prosecution methodology. The tighter the case against Libby, the more nooses on the table yet to come. Anyone every found out if Fitz lost a debate in high school or college?
OT for *ilson-
Was there any discussion at the party convention about the RS article about the stolen election?
Teddy SanFran – I read the Byron York piece as just another example of the unreality community at work. Nothing more than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
I didnt hear any chatter about the RS article on Ohio. I did see a table at the State Convention put up by Indiana Progressive Democrats who are mostly from up in Northern Indiana (South Bend).
It sounds like Irving is in the middle of what could be a very painful course of instruction on Accountability. Judge Walton appears to be a master of the subject, which could make it tough for Scooter to pass the final exam.
For those who fail this basic course, I understand that is a Remedial Accountability course, taught at a federally-run residential institution. (They even offer free room and board.)
With luck, Irving may not have to take that course alone. I hear that there’s plenty of room for Rove and the whole WH/EOB fraternity.
can scooter’s past defense claims be used against him ???
there’s an inherent contradiction that has been pointed out several times
Wilson was Small potatos, so scooter never gave him much thought
and
everybody was working to defend the Veep against Wilson’s false charges, so why should scooter be singled out
those two statements are mutually exclusive, and they seem to comprise the defense’s case
scooter on toast, that’s what this means
Cujo359 at 7 — the judge could cut thing off, but they don’t generally like to unless there is some substantial overstepping in terms of what is requested and such. The defense is entitled to make arguments that have any merit to them whatsoever — part of this initial process is also to make a record (a paper trail, if you will, via the motions and the arguments on the record in court) in case of a need for appeal later. Judges do not like to cut that off: it’s the defendant’s right to do so, constitutionally and really in all fairness they ought to be allowed to make every argument possible considering someone’s presonal freedom is hanging on the line, and no judge likes to be overturned on appeal for a procedural ruling.
Jane at 8 — thank god this isn’t turning into another OJ trial. I was in law school while all that was going on, and our professors used it as a model of how not to conduct yourself in trial on occasion. It was even more irritating because every family member I had was glued to the damn tv, and at every holiday gathering I got asked about it. Blergh.
VG, *ilson, et al: tristero over at Hullabaloo (chez digby) is sort of tip-toeing back from the RFK Jr. RS piece, based on the Fahrad Manjoo critique at Salon.com. I haven’t read either all the way through, so I’m just passing this along.
punaise, I still think you and Fitz might be one and the same. I saw siun’s comment about seeing you in person, but I’m not convinced.
1) I’m sure you’re good looking, but aren’t we all around here? Isn’t FDL kind of like Lake Wobegone, where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the kids are above average?
2) And when siun saw you, where was Fitz? Hmmmm . . .
3) Then there’s the word from the good book: “By their snark you shall know them.”
I won’t say your cover is blown, but let’s just say the jury’s still out.
rwcole at 9 — I think we’re at the end of the first phase. First, you argue about the scope of what you get, then you argue about the admissibility of what you have. Justice moves slowly — but the good news is that dragging it out sometimes gives the defendant a good, long look at prison time. I got more pleas after indictments than I did prior to them, if that tells you anything. And this is moving along at the pace I would expect, quite honestly — nothing unusual thus far. Maybe some of our federal practitioner readers can chime in here, but truly the Libby indictment and pre-trial maneuvers thus far have been in line with my previous experience. (Anyone have thoughts to the contrary on that? In agreement? Really, I’d love to hear it. The bulk of my experience was state court, so those with more federal trial time, please chime in here.)
re elections in November: one way we can counter the GOP scare tactic / whine that the Dems will be on a witchhunt if they get the majority: turn W’s post-2004 election swagger back on him –
“Time for Another Accountability Moment”
rwcole at 17:
The prosecutor asked Safavian if the picture looked like the dining room of the hotel he stayed at. Sure, Safavian said, adding, “It looks like a typical hotel dining room.”
Probably one of the reasons not much is happening with the Libby case is because Peter Zeidenberg, one of the prosecutors on the Safavian case, is also a prosecutor for the Libby case.
For:
read:
For Christy … the latest dispatch on the empty suit in the Oval Office.
Thanks, Mark at 34. :) Will fix it.
punaise @32:
Love the turn-around! I’d leave off the “another” and simply go with “Time for an Accountability Moment”
The more we get the word “Accountability” into play, the better off we are.
November 7, 2006: National Accountability Day. (Have you held your elected official accountable today?)
Oooh, Swopa at 35 — you know just what to say to a girl, don’t you? *g* (Are you going to YearlyKos, she says hopefully?)
Anamole — is that like whack-a-mole?
Sorry, I’m just back from a big bike ride, a ride for which I was sorely (pun intended) unconditioned, and I have to take it out on someone…
I think you mean anomaly.
Peterr 30, heh heh
lookin’ sharp there, fella. ;~)
(like I said, I am Fitz’s evil twin Binkie. Mom always liked him best. )
No seriously, you’re not gonna get me to fall for that one. I’d hardly equate an occasionally amusing tournure de phrase with the subtle Fitz snark, which is just gravy, or icing on the cake (choose your culinary metaphor. His crystalline logic, relentless focus and titan legal skills – that’s what it’s all about.
(all filtered through the prism of Redd’s and Jane’s analysis, along with the brilliant commentariat, for us lay folk)
I’m not fit to fit to carry Fitz’s…uhh… briefcase.
(FYI, however, I was on the grassy knoll in 1963. In diapers. )
Christy Hardin Smith @ 2:01 pm (#27) – Thanks Christy, that’s what I feared.
This trial is so different from the ones I’ve seen on jury duty that it just seems preposterous sometimes. In one trial, no one showed up to support the defendant in any way, and his attorney seemed to be the public defender who couldn’t run out of the room fast enough. The guy was found guilty, partly because the prosecutor didn’t assume it was a slam dunk and presented a good case, but partly because the defendant clearly had no defense available. IMHO, he was no more guilty of what he did than Libby is of what he’s accused of. It’s hard to imagine a starker contrast between that one and this, with the exception of the OJ trial.
markfromireland @ 2:10 pm (#34) – Good catch. I just assumed that was some legal term I wasn’t familiar with.
Peterr @ 37 – the “another” refers to the fact that W referred to the 2004 election as the accountabilty moment that validated the Iraq war and earned him all that political capital (that he has so wisely spent, eh?)
Some typos are just irresistible Christy as yary @ 39 detects your subconscious thinks “Bush Administration – Crimes above and beyond criminality – Christy – Whack-A-mole” and sends an urgent message to your fingers :-)
Redd–Thanks for your response. One more question please. What are the key parts of the remaining process where a defendant can stretch to time to trial? Do you see any evidence at this point that Libby’s lawyers are in a four corner stall?
Re Punaise 29 and the RFK article — I am not an MD but I am a child developmentalist with a partner who is a child therapist specializing in autism — and caveat –we both are very open to alternative medicine and critical of things about mainstream medicine. That said, we have been following both sides of the mercury in childhood vaccines debate for years. My partner has some fascinating video of a child prior to his vaccines and after his vaccines….Anyway. This is a big controversy. RFK jr had the nerve to go up against mainstream medicine, to pay attention to parents, to non-traditional research sources. (Much of the research has been funded by big Pharma…. so the other side of the case hasn’t had as much support, is anecdotal, etc etc.)
I thought Kennedy’s article was entirely credible, very courageous, and as I recall he came down on multiple factors – environmental toxins, compromised immune system, too many combo vaccines too young, in addition to the mercury. And none of the studies of the mainstream that I have read about have ruled out this. And anyway — it is a worthy debate and he did his research. He just didn’t agree with the powers that be and thought there was another side and did a good job of presenting it. And it makes me really angry that he is being discredited for the election work based upon another article. Either what he says in this article is true or not true — even if he was wrong in the prior article (which many people who pay professional attention to the huge increase in autism don’t think he was.)
Just read the Salon rebuttal of the Kennedy Rolling Stone article. Pretty damaging it seems. Damn- I bought it hook line and sinker.
A wee bit OT:
My thoughts wrt Karl “The Weasel” Rove status – The reason we’ve not seen an indictment (yet) is simply that Fitz hasn’t got a strong enough case against the Weasel. And not for lack of Fitz effort either!
The logic is that if Fitz did have the evidence after Weasel’s 5th GJ appearance, Fitz would have charged him by now.
Fitz does things methodically and without haste, but he wouldn’t wait a month if he had the goods on the Weasel. Fitz would have charged him by now if the evidence was there.
Also, I don’t believe the Weasel would roll over. He has too much to lose (the Bush dynasty don’t care much for traitors; either political or personal), and the Weasel has little to gain.
The idea that Fitz could offer the Weasel immunity for testimony against higher-ups doesn’t compare to the “Get Out of Jail Free Card” that a Shrub pardon promises.
The Weasel knows that ratting out either Darth or Shrub himself would be a “life-sentence” without parole even if he didn’t spend a day behind bars. Won’t do it!
The Good News? That Fitz hasn’t announced that the Weasel is off the hook! Fitz knows the Weasel is dirty! He just hasn’t found the right “smoking gun” yet, and Fitz is still looking for it.
Tenacious is our boy Fitz! And he ain’t through baiting the Weasel trap just yet!
Christy-From the other side, as a defendant.
The pace is determined by how much money the defendant has to pay lawyers. This case is taking way too long. I know it is all by the book but there are plenty of people in jail right now for like and lesser offenses that didn’t have a year and a half before their case came to trial. That’s what is so frustrating for a lot of us.
Cujo at 41 — I’ve been in that public defender’s shoes a time or two. Sometimes you got a client for whom the evidence was stacked up so high you could not see the light of day above it, and where you had police officers and investigators who followed all the laws to the letter and you had no procedural issues to argue — and you were offered a plea (or not) but your client, for whatever reason decided they wanted a trial. Sometimes they swear they aren’t guilty (and you get a not guilty client, you really do) — and when you are in that situation and you are dead certain that you have a guilty client, but they want a trial, sometimes you don’t have a choice but to go to trial. (Either that, or ask off the case, in which case someone else gets the client and the trial most of the time.) Remind me to tell you guys the story of the client the police had on video from the squad car some time…
cujo @41, Christy @27 –
I read through the ruling (and other stuff, like these discussions) as a former juror, not as a lawyer or a judge. Yes, Judge Walton will let Team Scooter make all the arguments they want, but I caught the same tone that Anne @15 did about him getting weary of it.
This isn’t moot court with first year law students, and everyone in the courtroom knows it. There comes a point when specious arguments defeat their purpose, and when obvious smokescreens become more than annoying.
Shorter Judge Walton: “Move it along, counselor!”
I know there’s no jury in the room yet, and I think Walton’s trying to short-circuit as much of this nonsense as possible before it gets to that point. I’m sure he is looking ahead to the inevitable appeal, but he’s also got his eyes on the folks who will be sitting in that jury box eventually. A trial that moves along smartly is one that stands the best chance of having a jury follow the arguments and render a fair judgment. The more delays during the trial – sidebars at the bench, arguments in chambers, etc. – while the jury cools its heels, the more likely it is that jurors get lost, bored, confused, or worse.
On behalf of the future jury, let me thank Judge Walton! In my experience, if a judge has this kind of respect for the jury, it does not bode well for those peddling snake oil.
Uh Mark from ireland, I am sure you meant
rudy 46 – all good points, however: I was just passing it along without commentary this time. (I’m trying to learn not to offer opinions on stuff I haven’t read thoroughly – right markfromireland? :~)
When I linked to the Salon.com piece earlier this morning I said “wet blanket Fahrad Fanjoo of Salon.com pooh-poohs the RFK Jr. story”.
Looks like rwcole at 47 is all over it.
Manjoo, not Fanjoo
rwcole at 45 — you know, I don’t really see a stall. They are still well within the judge’s schedule for pre-trial motions, discovery and such, and frankly it looks like everything is proceeding as scheduled — with the trial still set for early next year. I haven’t seen this judge do anything that would jeopardize that schedule in any way and, honestly, most judges try to keep things set in stone as much as possible because their dockets are SO crowded that, unless there is very good cause (like there would be a miscarriage of justice if the date weren’t changed kind of cause), the trial will likely go as scheduled.
OT: And probably not in the slightest germaine, but I raised the spectre of the evil, distaff Columbo over at the WaPo blog today:
Jim “WATB” Brady, of course, was once again whining about “personal attacks” that always seem to happen at his paper when his reporters blow it bigtime. He was opining that he hoped the new comments sections, which will initially be added to sports and liesure articles, might be ruined by all those scurrilous commenters who complained about Debbie Howell, etc.
Yes, that’s right, the sports and liesure sections. Then, I suppose, they’ll move on to weather and the comics.
I’ve tried reason to get them to modernize their comments section, now it’s time to try shame. That probably won’t work, either. I’m convinced Jim Brady never reads his own blog.
rudy @ 46,
I’ve been loosely following the mercury in child vaccines & autism controversy for a while. My wife, a (retiring after 30 years in nine days!) fifth grade teacher has become sort of an autism wonk, as she has worked with a number of autistic children over the years. She read Kennedy’s article on the vaccines, said she had seen most of his evidence already at other credible sources, and predicted he’d be thoroughly slimed for putting himself so far out in front on the issue.
I’ve read Kennedy’s RS piece, the Salon rebuttal, tristero’s essay and comments section. There will probably be a fair amount of sliming of the RS voting article over the next week.
BTW, excellent post, Redd. Can’t wait for part II.
Punaise- thanks for the link re: the Kennedy article. I went to Salon and skimmed the article, but it will take a while to digest the content. I am interested in looking at the analysis of the Mitofsky poll in particular. The writer is correct in saying that most of the information in the Kennedy article was old news- that was my reaction also. And, opinions certainly have differed as to the interpretation of this “old news”, at least as to the impact on the actual number of votes yea or nay Kerry. One aspect of the story, however, that is beyond question in my opinion, however, is that Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secy. of State, and also co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign there, did many things that were highly unethical and some most probably illegal in terms of ensuring that Dem and minority voters had difficulty voting. All of this is documented in the Conyer’s report. So, if you ask the question “Was the election stolen?” and then weigh the answer to this question based on some idea of the possible number of votes that went missing, you can come up with YES, or NO, depending on whether or not one is convinced that enough votes went missing to have changed the outcome from Kerry to Bush in Ohio. The Salon writer, it seems to me, is basing his “No” response on his evaluation that not enough votes went missing to have changed the outcome. I’m not sure that the question can ever be answered in a YES or NO fashion. But what is perfectly clear is that there was a concerted attempt in Ohio to disenfranchise likely Dem. voters. I don’t think one has to be wedded to a yes or no answer as to whether or not it happened. “Was the 2004 election stolen?” Even if Bush rightly won, there certainly were plenty of efforts to make sure that he would, and many of these efforts were not ethical, to say the least.
rwcole #47
what was the the arguement they had? Nothing happened that had not happened before? They are god’s party and would not do anything like the heathen dems do?
Stephen at 49 — that is certainly true for felonies that take less time to try the case. If you have a DUI case, generally you can knock that out in a half day or a day. For more complex cases, like a murder trial, a racketeering trial or something as intricate as this where Fitz is going to have to build the case in and among multiple witnesses, they do get scheduled on a more lengthy time frame. It’s an economy of scale issue, I think, that people who haven’t had to weave in and out of shorter and longer trials can’t see. But, having dealt with shorter and lengthier trial matters over the course of my career, I honestly don’t see this one as unusual. Sure, the high priced attorneys can buy you more thorough motions sometimes — although I worked my ass off for my appointed clients just as much as I did for my retainer ones, and most attorneys that I know did so as well — but all those motions don’t necessarily slow things down. If the judge wanted to speed things up, he’d consolidate. The thing that makes this particular case unwieldy is the degree of classified information that has to be sifted through and either declared material (and thus publishable to the jury in some form, which has its own set of procedures) or found to be immaterial.
Honestly, though, if I thought this was dragging out in some really unusual way, I’d say so. But I’ve had murder cases drag on longer than this in state court due to forensics and other issues — each case has its own rhythm based on its facts and circumstances, and I think Libby’s is moving along pretty steadily at this point.
Eek Busted! Christy please korekt my correchsun
cujo @ 56 -
The WaPo comments are starting with the sports section? Long before rightwing political radio punditry came along, the sports radio folks had the whole thing down pat. If you think people get nasty on political talk radio, check out the sport radio call in shows sometime (especially after a big home team loss).
If the comments to the WashPo sports articles are even half of what gets said on sports radio, the filters are gonna go nuts!
IIRC– Farhad Manjoo has been naysaying voting irregularities since the election… I’ll go do some more research… all I am saying, is he has a vested interest in this.
Mark at 61 — done. :)
OfT from thenexthurrah:
“KY-GOV – Fletcher picks new running mate, loses more ground”
“As if poor beleagured Ernie Fletcher (in the midst of a witch hunt by Partisan Democrats Gone Wild!) didn’t have enough to deal with, his lieutenant governor opted out of a second term last week, but said he would stay in office until his current term expired. Admidst speculation that Pence will run in the 2007 GOP primary against Fletcher, Fletcher asked him to resign immediately. Pence said no and Fletcher’s people essentially had a little fit. …”
keith- It’s a point by point rebuttal (and not done by goopers). It appears that Kennedy (or his staff) took some liberties.
more re Manjoo article dissing RFKjr’s piece:
I think this link will get you straight to the comments at Salon re Manjoo’s article. Lotsa folks sticking up for RFK:
http://letters.salon.com/news/…..nedy/view/
Cujo 56 — what no iPod ads?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 2:32 pm (#50) – I suspect you’re right. I can’t imagine an effective defense in the trial in question. That’s why I wrote that he was the PD who couldn’t run out of the room fast enough. It was just a bad case to be stuck with. His heart certainly wasn’t in it, and he several times seemed to break F. Lee Bailey’s rule about never asking a witness a question when you don’t know the answer. Often, the answers hurt his client’s case.
[Note - it’s probably not FLB’s rule, but he wrote the book where I first encountered it.]
I’ve been there when people didn’t accept my professional advice, and I was stuck with the mess, so I certainly understand. That’s not an excuse for lousy performance, but when you have other jobs to do that you might have a chance of making a difference on, you have to prioritize. I’m sure he had clients who did have a chance of winning, and maybe were actually not guilty.
Cujo 56- LOL. That’ll get his attention!
What I thought was interesting was that, if things are really running on time and on track, this Walton ruling has come after, not just the motions but also after the first round of CIA pdb descriptive/redacted production (which was due right about the time of the ‘was Gonzales seen going into the courthouse or not’ spec) tht Judge Walton had ruled upon earlier.
So he is writing this opinion after having gone through round one on that CIA production. Round two is still a bit away, but the possiblities for anything associated with that derailing things has also gotten hugely more remote.
MadDog – I can think of lots of other reasons for delay on the Rove radar and I think they are more probable than the fact that he has no charge. There seems to be a pretty clear cut situation with regard to false statements vis a vis the Cooper situation. OTOH, Rove is where the firewalls are going up, so the Prosecutor may have a lot that is not qued up on the Marquee to address before making determinations, especially if the evidence to the GJ so far has implicated more than one person. That GJ has heard some interesting things by now – even just based on what WE have seen in the press, about Novak conversations, Cheney notes, Presidential authorizations, etc. Tack on the fact that whatever is going on with the “we once, were lost, but now are found, were deleted, but now, we speak” emails, both the handling of the emails and their content, is something about which NO ONE is leaking (which seems to me to indicate there is nothing favorable to any defendant and the Spec. Pros office is just doing their typical follow the rules thing) and there may be more going on than just a Rove juggle.
Who knows? But I wouldn’t be sold on a collapse of the case against Rove as the reason for holding off. It just doesn’t sound right.
I have been thinking for awhile – serving on either of the Spec. Pros. grand juries has to have been or be some of the hardest jobs in DC right now.
Cujo at 69 — fwiw, I never went to trial without something to hold on to — some tiny little sliver of an angle to work. But even then, it’s difficult to maintain any sort of “I’m going to kick some ass” disposition, no matter how much thespian you try to bring into the courtroom in your briefcase. SIGH Mercifully for my career, those cases were few and far between — most of my clients listened to some sense, and understoond that I was working for their benefit. And I have no patience for attorneys who don’t give 100% in the defense of their clients — none — so if it was a case of someone not doing their job, that attorney ought to be ashamed of him or herself. Period. The judicial system is too important to half ass it, especially when the person you represent is facing prison time — it’s not just their lives, but those of their families that are involved in the outcome. (And I’ve done too many abuse and neglect cases with little kids and too many juvenile cases with older ones to know the results of a parent going to the penitentiary. It’s too important to just half-ass that job.)
Jane Hamsher @ 2:53 pm (#68) Not yet. I’m sure they’ll be there before too long. The staff don’t seem to clean up any of the comment threads any longer unless things get totally out of hand. There are many “comments” with embedded URLs that lead to commercial sites. That’s why I suggested they freeze old comment threads if they aren’t willing to maintain them [at the WaPo blog link in (#56)].
Do you have to do that here?
Did anyone notice in the news the other day, a plane crash in Long Island Sound which killed the pilots?
Of interest to me was the fact that the plane was owned by a corporation owned by Pat Robertson. Apparently the plane was leased by another company and they were responsible for maintaining it.
What I want to know is what would a good Christian man like Robertson need with a Lear jet, if he just rents it out? Surely the investment would be better used to help the suffering?
Anyone know anything about this?
I was so overjoyed at the thought of you and Fiona enjoying a healthy game of Whack-A-Crook that I got all confusticated and bebothered Christy and now for some reason or another that classic of American children’s literature:
Has re-written itself in my fevered consciousness as follows:
And I can’t stop chanting it …… I think I need some chocolate to soothe myself and get my typing back up to par.
Bionic – he needed to be airborn in order to get Nearer My God to Thee
Here comes Fitzy Cotton-tail
Hopping down the paper trail
markfromireland @ 3:02 pm (#74) – But where does “hare today, goon tomorrow” fit into this new version?
Even though this case has, and may, take quite a while to disposition, I’d much rather have the thoroughness and resoluteness for which Fitzgerald is noted, than have Libby ‘beating the rap’ on appeal. Besides. I think the far greater implication is that future presidents and their underlings take note of what can happen as a result of imitating the narrow and criminal Bushian ends justify the means of political plotting. And I think Fitzgerald understands this better than I. The sense is, is that Fitzgerald is a true believer in good government.
Okay, we’re all clearly a bit hopped up this evening. *g* (Sorry, couldn’t help it with all the bunny jokes…)
rwcole, thanks for the heads up on the
Salon post:
“Was the 2004 election stolen? No.”
By Farhad Manjoo
“In Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election. But the evidence he cites isn’t new and his argument is filled with distortions and blatant omissions….”
I haven’t had time to read either the Rolling Stone piece or Salon’s rebuttal.
We all know Republicans cheat. We’re armpit deep in Republican scandals that have and have not been investigated. We don’t need more scandals, we need the corporate media to begin covering locally and nationally what’s already part of the public record.
Few at FDL imo doubt that George W. Bush completely spent his time during the Vietnam War “guarding the Florida Coast” from “under a table, snorting coke off a stripper’s rock hard ass.” (Stolen from Jane Hamsher)
All that evidence got “lost,” in the corporate media’s terminally absent, short-term memory, because Dan Rather “over-reached” on a document that clearly had very serious provenance problems.
If a liberal blog makes an error, the WaPo and the New York Times will include that fact in every story about liberal blogs, ever again. Last week the WaPo’s Tom Edsall just stated in an online chat that the media owed the blogs a debt of gratitude for debunking the fabulously wrong story about Harry Reid doing favors in exchange for boxing tickets. He voted against the legislation that he was supposedly bribed to support. That in my opinion is something to build on.
Angie #63
A cursory google pulls up lots and lots of articles he’s written about the subject. The further back you go, the less evidence he has. But RFKjr is in his sights, for some reason. The Salon piece is one long attack.
Mary- what do you think are the most likely reasons for the Rove delay? The most fun is that Fitzy has some new charges or co-defendants to throw into the hopper and that he wants to do em all at once.
rwcole – that NYT article is a piece of work. http://tinyurl.com/hgmj4 What is with all the leaks lately btw? Gonzales, McNulty, Mueller, Addington – that fiasco involving the top law enforcement folk who all know all about leaking and privilege – out to the press in heartbeat. ???
Now an article that says, Mr. Bush’s aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. and While Mr. Bush was intrigued, he was intent on secrecy, and so when the National Security Council met on the subject on May 17, he warned against leaks. but also happily trips along with But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic . . .
Yeah. He’s adamant that no one leak, this is restricted to NSC type folk, and yet – golly gee – they appear anyway to both violate the admonition about leaking and yet to positively “portray” the president as a “rebuilder.” And a “team player.” The president grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of exasperation “that said, ‘O.K., team, what’s the answer?’ “
And as with all WaPo and NYT articles, it seems to have the obligatory reference to the legacy of the Bush Presidency. Trust me, under just about any “death tax” you could think of, that legacy is going to be exempt.
I
Time for some Welsh rarebit?
Or perhaps, something complete different?
http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/malkin.jpeg
(I found that on Jesus’ General…it made me laugh!)
Fitzy doesn’t cotton to liars.
Oh yes bionic pat owns quite a lot of planes including those used for “operation blessing”
“In which the gorilla talks dirty”
John- I suppose that stripper’s ass is no longer rock hard- and neither is GW Clusterfuck’s. He may or may not still be snortin something.
There is an intense animosity between the mainstream press and the blogs. Guess the press has rabbit ears and doesn’t like the ongoing and often intense spotlight for one thing.
They are probably right that a lot of pretty bad reporting happens on the internet- but a lot of bad reporting happens in the WaPo as well.
In any given case- one still must wade through the evidence as best one can.
So you’re saying that Libby’s defense is flopsy punaise and that the little mopsy is going to spend a few years sitting on his cottontail in Mr. McGregor’s big enclosure for bad bunnies?
John Casper @ 3:08 pm (#80) – I haven’t read the Manjoo piece, but if it’s like his previous efforts, I think we can guess that he’ll be rightly skeptical of claims of anomolies based on exit polls. On the question of what seems to be selective disenfranchisement of Democratic-leaning voters, I think people need to take a step back and wonder how you can honestly count votes that aren’t there. IMHO, someone needs to pay for that disenfranchisement, as they should have in Florida after 2000, but you can’t assume that they would have voted the way their neighbors did. All you can really assume is that they didn’t get the chance. To me, that’s bad enough. There are few duties a government has that are more serious.
I’m glad that someone at the Post not named Froomkin sees value in blogs when they do good work. The AP has done several hatchet jobs on Democrats of late. It’s nice when one of their customers calls them on that, too.
Mary–Obviously the Clusterfuck spin machine still works. Many of the major media outlets are picking up the two planted stories and linking them- oblivious to the fact that they are manufactured news. Incredible.
(markfromireland – this is taking me back more than a few years to bedtime storyreading to punaisette)
Libby may as well cower under the watering can
as Fitzy goes hippity hoppity
Rove is going flippity floppity (?)
Cheney’s the Weare Rabbit and Fitz is the great hunter with clear sights set upon the entire warren at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Thanks, Stephen– was off reading. He bucked Palast quite strongly, too.
Slightly OT, but it’s been impossible to comment today-the loading symbol just keeps grinding away forever… :(
doug r @ 3:22 pm (#89) – It’s been working OK for me. Might be a network issue between FDL and you, or if you’re a Windows user, there’s the ever-present possibility of malware.
OT: Wikipedia on Manjoo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Manjoo
What Cujo359 said at 3:19.
the press is hardly lapin it up
I’m reading ‘The Smartest Guys in the Room’ about the Enron collapse. (I loved the movie, and thought I would read the book.) I knew that Lay and the Bush family were close, but what is even more disturbing are the parrallels between the Bush administration and how Enron operated.
… the cluelessness about day to day operations, the emphasis of P.R. over any real accomplishments, the arrogance, the punishing of dissent, the dismissal of a ‘reality’ based view, the ‘blame the media’ strategy, the ’snowing’ of the media, the refusal to take responsibility or even acknowledge any errors …
Scary.
It does seem to me punaise that this adminstration has more holes in it than Mrs. Tiggywinkle’s bedlinen….
Mary –
Love the “graceful” description of the Amazing emails!
Markfromireland –
But what happens when the
GoodGooper Fairy comes down and threatens to turn little Lawyer Fitzy into a Newt?!lapin it up? B. York certainly has the hare for it …
hare-brained, York sure pudding on airs
MaryAnn @ 3:23 pm (#97) – This must be what they’re learning in business school nowadays.
Angie – But be careful to say which hunter is the Fitz. It sure isn’t Fitz saying “Be vewwwry, vewwwwry quiet . . . I’m hunting wabbits!” He’s just sittin’ there chewin’ his carrot.
Fitz: It’s Scooter season.
Libby: It’s Rover season. . .
Peterr @ 3:27 pm he’ll turn into a celtic fire salamander and burn the bad gooper fairy’s wings off.
Thanks markfromireland (I hope I got the capitalization and connections right this time ;o) for the link to your blog.
I honestly don’t understand why people like Robertson and Falwell are awarded any kind of standing in American media.
Their brand of false bonhomie coupled with false moral outrage, coupled with actual high crimes and misdemeanors makes me think they belong in jail or at least responded to with jeering ridicule by everyone, not just thinking people.
I really don’t know rwcole. I’m not much of a fortune teller, but that would be my favorite one too. More players and what to do with them? One at a time, a pair, three of a kind? That would be interesting.
I have to think that something is going on re: the emails as well. I have a hard time believing it was just an “oops” that 250 RESPONSIVE (or else he wouldn’t be turning them over to Libby) emails went away. If it is not a relatively innocent and simple explanation – that has to be taking some time and thought to address.
THere is also the fact that there may be some items of privilege intermingled in those, and some behind the scenes negotiating going on re: those. Or the content of them may be generating some additional negotiations re: testimony or pleas.
There is also, from a prosecutorial standpoing, not that much reason to rush. For one thing, at some point Walton has indicated that, while he is holding off for now, there may be some of the Rove GJ info that is in the Prosecutor’s hands to which Libby might be entitled (since the indictment mentions Rove/Libby conversation).
Notice that every time there is a discovery hearing, though, Walton tightens up the discovery scope. So if and when that becomes a reality (turnover of Rove related info), the delay narrows what the Prosecutor has to hand over. Even if there are no charges against Rove in the end, there is info in front of that GJ and keeping Libby in the dark about it for as long as possible is probably a good thing.
There are probably also some significant issues re: conspiracy being discussed. Keep in mind, too, all this is going on against the backdrop of the other cases being pursued by everyone on the Spec. Prosecutors team, and some big cases, heavy on discovery and needing detailed prep work too – like Hollinger, Safavian, etc.
Conspiracy charges can always be brought later, so there would be some finagling. GJ evidence that might go to show conspiracy – what are you going to do re that if you are wanting to first go with straight charges and leave the conspiracy as a dangler until you maybe wrap in one or two other players? You’ll go from just Libby to Libby and Rove both pushing for access to more GJ info. Any of that info that involves persons other than them – you may not want to hand over just yet.
I can see it all possibly being complex. OTOH, it could just be full case loads and waiting for a couple of things, like Safavian, to wrap. Or maybe everyone is waiting to see if Gonzales really does resign if Bush returns the Jefferson docs. *g*
I also had some spec that there might be a cooperating witness that is also cooperating in another case – like maybe a Ralston in Abramoff; or who they are trying to flip in another case (use the same example) and there is some delay in trying to coordinate the two cases so as not to crater any parts of either.
I don’t have any strong feeling about what it might be, just a strong feeling that there are enough possiblities out there, delays don’t necessarily mean anything good for Rove.
I alos keep going back to the release of the NIE info. That Judge Walton let him go that far and that the WH didn’t pound back. Or even whimper or whine back. And soon thereafter, people started leaving.
After that NIE smack, the WH either has a good idea where the Prosecutor is going and can live with it and don’t want to shake the boat even though he pissed them off, or they’re scared. On that one I have an opinion. I haven’t seen anything make them go “off attack” mode except fear. If he can put the “leaker in chief” bumper sticker on Bush’s car and nothing has happened – - you have to wonder about that.
hop on up to the new thread, silly wabbits
New thread.
bionic – yah you got it right in all respects especially about Robertson.
Now Cujo359, re#102 – I’m in business school (to learn how to manage a non-profit), so we are not all like that. :)
Peterr– you are right of course– Fitz is kinda like Grommit– quiet, observant and oh- so- clever.
I have knuckled my way over to the new fodder provided by christy come and join me she’s provided lots of fresh clippings for all you Leporidae.
John Casper @ 3:22 pm (#95) – Just finished reading Manjoo’s article, and I’d have to say that I agree with it. I’ve yet to go through these articles point by point, which will probably take me a day or two, but Manjoo is one of those rare journalists who has an understanding of mathematics. There’s nothing obviously wrong in what he wrote.
Now, to deal with some of the inevitable rebuttals,
* I’m a registered Democrat, and usually vote for Democrats
* it’s true, I’m not terribly courageous, but I don’t feel threatened by these articles, or by most of you people
* my ass, while large, is not as large as many. For instance, I wasn’t one of the people who posed for this photo, and it’s quite possible that you were.
* I understand things to the level of how well you can explain them
Now that we’ve dealt with the stupider rebuttals, carry on …
nina@24, careful now………lol
John at 14
I sure know what you mean about “dust in the wind.” I imagine Fitz knows he will not solve all problems, but that he is doing his small part to stop a few bad ones from taking advantage of the rest of us just trying to keep up our end of the deal.
Many specks of dust can add up to quite an event. Or a mess. Anyway, we can do our own best, and I myself look to men and women of his sort as just an inspiration and reminder that I have a part to play, and to take my small part seriously, with energy, honor, and humility.
I tried hard to find the FDL article that Jane or Christy wrote about not looking to Fitz to do it all, to not be ourselves passive spectators. It was posted shortly after the Jason Leopold sealed indictment flurry, as a reflection on the phenomenon of this excitement around Fitz and team’s work, and a caution against depending on the outcome.
Anyone able to find it and link it? I really liked it, and I just spent a good 40 minutes searching. I just know I saw it! And if I don’t get my tail-end to bed, I will not do the world a dang bit of good later on today Sunday, for all my high-falutin’ typing about it. goofball that i am… must sleep… or my toddler will run me into the ground for sure…
Look we’re all grown up’s here, surely. All reasonable rational level headed adults who should not need to be reminded that ALL accused suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a properly constituted court of law.
Correctomundo?
That’s why I strongly counsel the most reserved, conservative and measured tones be used whenever we discuss that filthy pervert, G. Gordon Libby and that pack of criminals he associates with.
Thank you.
*-NEWS FLASH!-* In breaking news just to hand authorities have learned that Pat Robertson remains determined to strike within the United States…DEVELOPING…