
UPDATE: Markos and Jerome are currently on CNBC on the Tim Russert show. FYI — it’s a good conversation thus far. (Cozumel says that the show will repeat on CNBC again at 10 pm ET.)
Continuing from Part I.
Judge Walton then goes on to the actual detailed requests made by Libby’s defense team. The sole issue that he finds merit in is the following (PDF):
Therefore, if the government is in possession of documents that show the defendant’s intent to participate or his actual participation in such legitimate efforts [to rebut the merits of Ambassador Wilson's findings], those documents must be produced pursuant to Rule 16. (Walton Op., p. 4)
Okay, here’s the thing: Fitzgerald would already have been required to turn over any such documents in his possession, if any even exist, because this information would be considered potentially exculpatory material (making Irving look less guilty). So as victories go, this one rings awfully hollow: "Here, you can have access to the most likely nonexistent documents that you already likely would have had access to anyway." Oh boy. Pass the cocktail weenies and light the sparklers, it’s a par-tay. Cel-e-brate good times. Come on.
Judge Walton then goes on to broadly state that the bulk of the defendant’s document requests are denied because they simply are not material to the preparation of his defense under the charges as contained in the indictment. The judge points out that the defendant requests a very broad swath of documents and information from a number of governmental agencies without regard to whether anyone from those agencies will be called to testify and/or for what witness such information may be required for preparation — over and above whether or not the material contained therein is material to the indictment charges.
In support of this contention, the judge cites the George case — on which Fitz has relied for a number of his arguments on materiality and limiting the case to that which is contained within the four corners of the indictment itself and nothing more. (See Opinion, pp. 5-6) Per George, Judge Walton opines that the only documents or information which are material in this case at bar is the information that the defendant and/or potential witnesses reviewed at the time that the alleged offenses occurred — including up to the time when Scooter alegedly lied to the FBI agents and the grand jury and attempted to obstruct Patrick Fitzgerald and his team from investigating this matter further.
Further, the judge has examined the CIA Referral of the case to the DoJ for investigation, and has determined that the referral is immaterial to the charges contained in Libby’s indictment. (Opinion, p. 7)
Now I know there is going to be a great, shrieking howl from the right side of the blogosphere about this, but the judge is simply following the procedures and requirements for discovery in criminal cases in federal court and, the bottom line is, Libby is charged with discrete charges within his indictment — and he is entitled to information regarding those charges and nothing further.
He doesn’t get to go on some sort of scavenger hunt to find a scapegoat or to come up with personal attack material against any and all witnesses who may testify at trial — what he gets is to try his case on the merits, on the facts and on the indictment as voted on by a jury of his peers.
Just like everyone else who is indicted and prosecuted for multiple federal felonies.
Which brings me right back to the question that I asked at the beginning of Part I:
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.
If Scooter had nothing to hide from the grand jury and the FBI, why lie to them? Repeatedly? If his hands were so clean, if there was no intent to out Valerie Plame Wilson but simply to "get the truth out" as Team Libby keeps trying to spin things, then why not just tell the whole truth and be done with it and let the chips fall where they fall? Why lie — over and over again — both to investigators and then again under oath to a grand jury during two separate appearances?
That is a question that the trial jury will be asking themselves, I’m sure — and I’m just as certain that this is a question that the grand jury couldn’t satisfactorily answer for itself. Hence, Irving Lewis Libby finds himself indicted on five federal felony counts.
I have read and re-read Judge Walton’s order, and I find nothing ordered for discovery that would not already likely have been provided by Fitzgerald’s team in the normal course of business, in terms of material that might prove to be exculpatory in some way (if any such material even exists in the form of documents).
Now, the bulk of my criminal trial experience — both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney — was in state court. But our state court rules for criminal procedure and evidence track the federal ones, so it’s not as though we are talking a completely different set of standards. Additionally, I’ve also done a number of federal felony cases as trial counsel (as well as appellate counsel) for defendants — someone who has federal criminal experience in the last couple of years correct me if I’m wrong, but if a piece of information in the possession of the US Attorney tends to make it appear as though the defendant could be not guilty and/or even hint at a question of him not being so very guilty…well, it’s discoverable already without a special ruling to that effect.
So, honestly, it’s not so much a tiny little win for Scooter as an enunciation of what he was already going to get (or has already gotten, if it even exists in the first place) anyway.
Well, that has to sting. And all the spin in the world doesn’t get around this fact: the indictment is very tight, and becoming more and more tight all the time. As Jeralyn says so well:
Bottom line: Libby’s defense is he forgot about what he told reporters and what reporters told him because he was so caught up in matters of national importance, one of which was refuting the contents of Joseph Wilson’s statements.
I think it will be a tough sell for the jury. To accept Libby’s defense, they will have to accept that there was a concerted effort by the White House to discredit Wilson’s allegations in his op-ed about his trip to Niger but not him personally. Yet the message other reporters received from government officials was that the trip was a boondoggle, arranged by his wife, a CIA employee.
In light of the seven or so officials who discussed Joseph Wilson and his wife with Libby before his converstations with reporters, it seems odd he would believe he first heard it from Tim Russert. Especially since he discussed Valerie Wilson with Judith Miller weeks before he spoke with Russert.
And that inconsistency with the Judy Miller/Tim Russert timeframe is enough for a jury to look sideways through the tap dancing and the smoke machines and whatever swiss cheese memory fog that Team Irving decides to use…and call bullshit. Which isn’t exactly solid ground for building a great defense — I’ve been there as defense counsel, and it is never, ever fun. And with each motion being shot down, one by one, Team Libby’s dance routines are starting to look stale, even to Judge Walton.
(Come to Jesus, Scooter…)
(Yep, more Sting hotness. It’s all in the intellect, I swear…)
Related posts:
- SCOTUS Denies Valerie Plame Wilson Her Day in Court
- Executive Privilege and the Cheney Interview Documents
- Vote Fraud in Clay County Should be Considered in Hanging of Census Worker
- The SEC Civil Suit Against Countrywide’s Mozilo: Why You Need to Know About “Parallel Proceedings”
- Cheney’s Betrayal Made an IIPA Charge for Libby Possible





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitzalicious !
Rootz!
aha! I even had a # 0 comment on that one!
VG at 58 on the last thread, on the Kennedy article and response –
I think the important question is not whether the GOP stole the election or just tried to steal the election, it’s whether that makes any difference in terms of what should be done. Since the election isn’t going to be overturned at this point, it seems to me that what should be done is exactly the same in either case:
- voter suppression should be investigated and prosecuted
- citizen groups should fight (by lawsuit if necessary) to ensure that voting machines are equally distributed and well secured
- Kenneth Blackwell not be allowed to run for office while being in charge of elections
- etc.
It seems like that makes the Manjoo article much ado about nothing (or at least about little.)
Hey, gang, it turns out I get to go to YearlyKos after all! (It was looking pretty dicey for a while.)
I’m still a little nervous because the person who offered a room to share hasn’t responded since I said yes, but I’m sure it’ll work out one way or another…
Stings, spices and dunes…
O.K. Libby it’s getting pretty close to the big decision to flip and save your ass time. Come on now lets make that deal with fitz. He’s gonna take down Rover boy anyway. Soooo get in while the gettins good!
EPU’d from last thread…Mary at #70 says: 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.
Wasn’t saying collapse, just saying The Weasel was a tougher nut (literally and figuratively *g*) than Scoots to crack.
I agree that Fitz has more to digest wrt the emails and the possibility of nailing higher-ups is quite real.
But my central premise still is that if Fitz had the goods on the Weasel, he wouldn’t wait.
The possibility that he is waiting to nail a bunch of ‘em all at once is real, but I think less likely.
A bird in the hand (or a weasel *g*) ain’t bad. And yes, the webs might be so intertwined that to indict the Weasel would show his hand to those higher-ups, but I think that is too melodramatic to be very probable.
In the end, I’m just speculatin’ and yours is as good if not better than mine :-)
So far, Team Irving has been trying to take the case in a hundred directions, but Walton (following Fitz’s arguments, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and other legal niceties) is keeping them on a short leash. At what point, O Lawyers Amongst Us, does Team Irving give it up, pick a single defense and push it to the max? Any guesses as to which defense that will be (too busy with other things to care; too concerned with “getting the truth out” to lie; etc.), based on where they’ve been trying to go with some of these motions?
Let’s face it, your excuses for the Sting photos are about as thin as the Libby motions.
Some suggestions:
Cheney -> Libby: Don’t stand so close to me
Fitz -> Cheney: Every breath you take, every move you make, I’ll be watching you
etc.
“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.”
(Mary from previous thread)
Mary- I’ve been trying to figure out how the two cases might complicate each other to the point that Fitz might want to get all the discovery issues settled on Libby before moving on to Rove- but my ignorance overwhelms my ability to sort through the maze. Still- it feels as if that may be part of what’s going on.
Christy, I’m sensing a picture pattern here: Sting, Sting, Fitz, RFK, Fitz, . . .
Not that that’s a problem, mind you. Many’s the folks around here that appreciate people with a beautiful body . . . of work. No need to apologize.
Mrs.K8 or if anyone sees her. The safest advanced pain medication for dogs with severe pain is Tramadol. Rimydl has been found to have serious(sometimes fatal) side effects.
Sending more good thoughts your way.
Sorry, but I couldn’t comment further down (even worse than EPU’d), but I had to comment on the RFK jr article on Ohio. Good to see the info collected in one place outside our “tin foil hat brigade”. I wrote a diary based on a Wired article on some of the technical faults of electronic voting:
If You Can Read This Diary, You Can Hack Diebold
Redshift- yes, I basically agree with you on all that you said, tho Blackwell deserves something more. I hope the Kennedy article doesn’t get lost in the Yes or No question, bec. I agree with you that the election isn’t going to be overturned at this point. But, the Kennedy article does give a sort of “road map” as to how elections can be gamed, in addition to the points you have mentioned. (Big problem electronic voting machines). I’ll keep this short, tho I could go on…
http://interactive.zogby.com/
Here’s a website dedicated to Zogby interactive polling. You can sign up to be included in the polling! Takes about 10 minutes a month- and your views will be represented in the poll results. Give it a shot!
These are not unscientific online polls. They usually match telephone polls very closely in result.
Apologies for the OT and the drive-by, but Salam Pax (remember him?) has a new post on a new blog, and it’s yet another home run.
Hat tip to Laura Rozen for finding this:
http://justzipit.blogspot.com/
He’s one of the anchors who kept me sane (or no more insane than usual) during 2003, and his take hasn’t quite reached the weary sadness of Riverbend’s yet.
But the take-away’s still the same. We’ve literally FUBARed Iraq. Beyond. Freaking. Recognition.
(pssst….Christy’s got a thang for Stang)
Rick D 10 – we’re on the same page – from the last thread:
fun with Police song titles:
…etc….
For Karl, ‘Bring on Indict’ (bring on the night)
OT – Kos is on Tim Russert, now!
al-Scooter if you haven’t already read Baghdad Treasure’s May All Iraqis Rest in Peace
Cozumel at # 20
Mucho thanks for the tip! Watching with you right now!
Cozumel at 20 — thanks so much! I updated above so everyone can tune in — it’s pretty good thus far.
rwcole – think of it like this. Right now Libby only has a certain discrete set of charges. However, it is pretty clear that at any time (even after trial) he could get a second set of charges related to conspiracy. The conspiracy does not have to be brought now. It does require tieing in other people.
So – Libby is wanting to fish for as much of the info about him and “other people” as he can get. Fitzgerald doesn’t want to give it. From Walton’s Order:
Thus, of these seven categories of documents, the only documents that would be material to the preparation of the defense are those which tend to show that the defendant’s conversations with government officials did or did not occur as alleged in the indictment. See, e.g., Indictment at 7-8. 4 That Footnote 4 reads:
The government contends that production of documents of this nature may implicate grand jury secrecy rules. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 26. This Court is not in the position at this point to determine what documents, if any, are
not subject to production pursuant to Fed. Crim. R. 6(e). If the government determines that there exist documents that are covered by Rule 6(e), it is welcome to seek a protective order from this Court pursuant to Rule 16(d).
It may be he is resisting to keep Libby left footed, or it may be that he really has some nice conspiracy stuff that he would like to sit on as much as he can.
How much more leverage do you have if Libby is not quite sure about a possible conspiracy charge later? OTOH, you have to wonder if, by now, there is really anything Fitzgerald has that Libby (or even more so Rove) doesn’t know about? Whether they know about it legitimately or not is a different matter, but I have to think they know what he has.
Which means, to me, they think he has enough for conspiracy and they want to know where he’s going with it asap.
All just spec though.
clbrune says:
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
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%u2026I was going through withdrawal earlier this week ;-)
———————————————————-
I believe Fitz said in one of his filings that there were no Title III wiretaps as part of his investigation. I’m not sure what his exact wording was, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who parses things out, so I don’t think there were any wiretaps.
Am not too concerned about the “delay” in bringing Rove to some kind of closure. For one, Mr. Fitz has an awful lot of irons in the fire, and while we all think of him as superhuman, he does still need to eat and sleep occasionally.
What occurs to me is that as the Libby discovery is playing out, it is, in some respects setting some precedents for a future Rove case. And Rove, as well as his attorneys, are sitting on the sidelines seeing one possible defense strategy after another going up in smoke. That has to be exerting its own form of pressure on Rove, and whether it is deliberate on Fitzgerald’s part, or a happy by-product of his busy schedule, it still has to be making Rove a little squirmy.
I also think that if Fitzgerald knew he was not going to charge Rove, he would have cleared him. I think he is enough of a straight shooter that he would not keep Rove on the hook just to be able to play Irving a little.
Patience, as hard as that is, is what we need to have. My vote is for an indictment or three while Bush is off in Crawford in August recovering from his attempts to break out of the bubble.
OT, EPU’d FPT, etc.
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 …
Although I think a better way to put the last rebuttal would be “I understand your point to the level of how well you can defend it”.
VG – Yeah, I wasn’t really intending to disagree with anything you’d said, I was just musing on it. I do agree that the real danger is that this will fall into a Bushian “well, that’s old news” trap. Despite the fact that nothing has been done about it, the fact that it’s been talked about before somehow means it’s been “dealt with.”
Please don’t feed the scatological little troll …..
I have to disagree with Mad Dogs. I don’t think Rove has slipped the noose at all. I think he was going to be indicted along with Libby, and his lawyer managed to talk Fitz out of it with a bizarre story about Viveca Novak. Fitz checked the story out and realized that it didn’t make sense. He told Luskin that he was still going to ask for indictments against Rove. Rove made another grand jury appearance as a last ditch effort to head this off. As a Hail Mary attempt, it’s not a bad one. It’s a new grand jury, so I’m guessing Rove figured he had nothing to lose by trying to sweet talk them out of it. I think the only reason Rove hasn’t been hit yet is because Fitz is busy with other things.
Totally off topic: Bush’s big marriage push starts Monday, amid rumors that his wife has moved out of the White House and is staying at the Mayflower Hotel. And The New York Times is choosing to focus on the Clintons’ marriage. How surreal is next week going to be?
MFI #21:
Thanks. I read the post and skimmed the comments. There’s a great deal going on there.
Time for me to *poof*.
Never forget Libby’s real goal here: to get the case stopped — by, first, getting a judge to agree that some document is crucial for the defense and, second, getting the government to refuse to release the document because of “national security’, which, third, would allow the Justice Department to refuse to proceed with the case.
Christy and all,
You’re welcome! I was just channel surfing and tripped over it ; )
It looks like it repeats tonight at 10:00 PM ET on CNBC.
Delurking for a short note to say that FireDogLake has the best commentators.
Just one thing to say.
Fitz somehow reminds me of my cat batting around a lizard. The lizard’s going down no doupt about that. Moonshine has complete control.
But the part that reminds me of Moonshine is the innocent look on his face before and after the deed is done.
BoiBoi — now that’s funny (and apt). Thanks for de-lurking.
“Redshift- yes, I basically agree with you on all that you said, tho Blackwell deserves something more.”
While I believe Blackwell is as dirty as the cabal for whom he delivers votes, we really must attack it from a non-partisan pov. A law is needed that won’t allow anyone from either party who is the chair (or any other position-holder) of a campaign to also be in charge of managing any part of an election. The conflict of interest is so freaking obvious. Trust doesn’t cut it, nor should it even be raised as a defense. We must write into law the separations of power to make sure there is not even the possibility of impropriety.
Christy, Mary
I’ve seen (somewhere) the observation that the only possible invalidation to a pardon is if the conviction is part of an formal impeachment proceeding. Please comment on events which would be necessary to invalidate Scooter’s pardon. Thanks.
ralphinlex
… Salam Pax (remember him?) has a new post on a new blog, and it’s yet another home run. Hat tip to Laura Rozen for finding this…
Hmph. The cognoscenti read about Salam’s post at Needlenose yesterday morning. ;-) (Speaking of which, for anyone who’s been trying to access the site, it’s back up after a 2-hour nap.)
Regarding Libby … Jeralyn nails it. To these clowns’ way of thinking, pushing back against Joe Wilson was the #1 most important issue facing the country in July 2003. And Fitz has tons of evidence to document that — including all the public comments by Condi, Ari, et al. about the trip being “approved at low levels of the CIA,” followed by wink-wink, nudge-nudge hints that reporters should ask the CIA for more details.
Cozumel (34) — thanks! that was serendipitous, I was just thinking I wish I could have taped this program to share with the rest of my progressive peeps!
trying in vain to find a connection between the corrupt Ohio Blackwell and the catty Mr. Blackwell of the famed annual “worst dressed list“
any takers?
Frank Probst at 31 says: I have to disagree with Mad Dogs. I don’t think Rove has slipped the noose at all.
I sure don’t remember saying that at all, but I hope I was just being obtuse if that is what you thought I meant *g*.
I do not believe that the Weasel has slipped the noose at all!
Instead my point was that Fitz was having a harder time getting that noose around the Weasel’s head *g*.
And that Fitz is still working to trap that Weasel!
CathiefromCanada (and any other Canadian or Canaidian interested posters):
If you are interested in being involved in a Canadian kos type site (Scoop) please email me at nextagenda at gmail.com with I’m interested in the subject line. Also please include your kos name or your fdl name if it isn’t obvious from your email address.
Although I follow regularly and comment very infrequently in addition to appreciating the high quality of the comments, I am upset at the tone and quality of comments on this post in particular. The issue is a crime that I (not a lawyer) take to be a high crime, perjury, and ultimately impeachable offences against those in office, if this plays out as I hope it will. It is not paintball or mark out your territory (in cruder terms pissing on the paper), but nailing it about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, both of which are under threat IMHO.
rat bastahd at 4:39 pm
You are absolutely correct on this one! Bradblog and Brad Friedman are the main site/ source for election issues. I don’t read there as much as I used to, but I found it interesting that often when someone started questioning Dem strategy in the comments, the response would come back from another commenter that voting issues are not partisian issues. Anyway, it is clear to me from reading of BB that those who are passionate and educated about the voting issues do not see this as a partisian concern but a wholly broader one.
Wuh. [As they would say in northern Michigan]
Markos just gave Russert and his Sunday morning pals a little tap. Betcha’ they go after him now that he’s dissed them.
But Markos scored a GREAT point, that Lieberman hadn’t been home to visit constituents for 6 years (based on what a Lieberman staffer said).
Wuh.
OfT, but Ombudswoman Debbie has come down hard on the use of anonymous sources…. in the friggin’ Sports section. The woman’s idiocy knows no earthly bounds….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01554.html
Haralambos (44) — I think we all of us regulars here in this thread have reached a point of saturation. Many of us know this case forwards and backwards, have even read Walton’s response. We frequent multiple sites to discuss this, including Talk Left and The Next Hurrah.
But we are getting restless and itchy. We are getting punchy.
Bear with us.
ralphinlex at 38 — there’s no real way to pardon-proof the Libby case from Fitz’s end of things. And, frankly, it isn’t something that he’ll be worrying about. The President’s pardon power is plenary, and the only person for whom he could not issue a pardon would be someone who is beaing impeached. But on the political end, there are a number of considerations that we have discussed here pretty frequently: (1) if Democrats re-take the House in the Fall, especially, pardon is very unlikely because that would do away with any ability to take the 5th in testimony to Congress, and the Dems would certainly take advantage of that and have hearings on this issue; (2) politically, even before the fall elections, the GOP is looking dicey in a lot of races — and pardoning Libby before then would not be tenable among the party power folks; (3) even if a pardon is issued, the Wilsons still have civil remedies to contemplate, and a pardon would only make it that much easier for them to elicit testimony regarding what happened, since again the criminal jeopardy issue would be removed. There are more considerations, but that’s just a brief run-down of the bigger ones. Bottom line: there are a lot of pieces in play all at one time, and I don’t see a pardon as being politically feasible at the moment. But that’s just me…
OT: that mass killing in Indianapolis happened close to my home — the manhunt was all over my 46201 zipcode — the main alleged shooter just turned himself in ! I wasn’t scared : just wary …
OT: Over at Hullabaloo, tristero appears to be reexamining the Kennedy vote fraud story:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..7329276958
He cites the Salon article and another from Outside The Beltway, which, BTW, is one of the few blogs on the right I’ve found that seem able to do serious analysis. If you want to meet some serious minds from the opposition, that might be a good place to start.
From TeddySanFran’s WaPo link to Howell’s latest column:
I’ll leave the snark to someone else.
Hello,
Many thoughts on Brady material, whixh I will try to share if I can ever get the nugget to bed. But let me just say, I really dislike Sting-a-ling-a-ding-dong. Except perhaps for his too-true portrayal in Quadrophenia.
I hope you sleep with both eyes closed sweetly, instead of with one open in wariness tonite, *ilson!
Rayne 46
I practically gagged when Russert asked if it wasn’t important for the candidate to have likability. With the implication that Bush had it and Kerry didn’t.
I was disappointed Kos didn’t jump on that. It’s another media story. Who was it who said that Bush reminded most women of their exhusband, or something like that?
I’d far rather be stranded on a desert island with Kerry than Bush. I couldn’t stand to be stuck in line with Bush. (Unless I could give him a piece of my mind and he had to wear duct tape over his mouth so I wouldn’t have to listen to him and he had to “use the bathroom?” and he couldn’t leave the line until I was good and ready to let him go.)
Bush’s big marriage push starts Monday, amid rumors that his wife has moved out of the White House and is staying at the Mayflower Hotel.
Mighty big of the old boy to be willing to screw up his own marriage in order to screw up the marriages of a bunch of people he doesn’t even know.
However, it seems unlikely that she could move to a public hotel without the rumor becoming confirmed news and even more unlikely that the infotainment channels could resist the temptation of turning it into a “The Shooting of Buckwheat” ratings bonanza.
Jerome and Markos acquited themselves well. As for Russert, he was more evenhanded than usual, and certainly more so than on MTP. There were a few subtle jabs both ways, but overall, a good discussion.
What Time should do is just play that clip on MTP tomorrow, and sleep in.
It’d do the country good to see a civil discussion, and what progressives are all about.
obsessed at 56 — it does seem like the sort of story that, if confirmable, would have Rita Cosby doing back handsprings of joy out on the sidewalk in a full on stake out, complete with marriage counselor guests and..next up…Dr. Phil on the effects of this sort of thing on the grown twins…and how to talk to your children about the first family’s marital problems and…um, yeah, if Laura were at the Mayflower, Rita would be SO there. With bells on…
Bionic @ 5:06 pm (#55) – I think Kerry’s lack of affability hurt him with some voters. There are certainly many who think they can just tell what a guy is like by watching him on TV for a few minutes. Kerry’s aloof and always seems to be too serious, and probably wouldn’t appeal to such people for that reason.
One could argue that such people are too stupid to vote anyway, but unfortunately, they still do.
Were I in his place, I’d have to stifle the urge to say what I just wrote. Not the smartest thing for a political candidate to say, regardless of how true he might think it is.
that was a Wayne Madsen report about Laura moving into the Watergate(!!!) Hotel.
Washington, DC is famous for its gossip and rumors : the President’s Wife moving out to a city hotel would be such a giant, confirmable story…it would be a story of genuinely historic proportions…
diogenes at 57 — the Russert show on CNBC is generally pretty genial and discussion oriented like that. Which makes his Sunday morning persona a bit jarring once you’ve watched the low key interview style Tim(especially the day he had Pelosi on — what was that about?).
I thought Markos and Jerome did an excellent job — got their points across, very smoothly, and in a moderate way that most folks would have found friendly and thoughtful. Kudos to them!
Spelling Nazi. It’s satisfactorily.
kerry voted for war, so i voted for the marijuana candidate
‘Those scwewy wiberal wascals have twicked me again…Wats!’
;>)
Thanks, LindyH at 62 — I knew it looked off, but I forgot to go back and run the spell check, and I’ve been trying to remember which word I needed to re-check. That was it. Whew! Huge thanks — that would have bugged me all night…
questions about a candidate’s “likeability” are just so much bullshit. That’s something so very basic in politics: a candidate has to be agreeable to the voters. A political person has to be sociable, by definition.
obsessed 56, FWIW, Randi Rhodes picked it up on Air America:
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/
heh – darkblack strikes again – that witch, Wichelle Walkin
Re:sports and anonymity
I find it appalling that the only quasi- liberal “news” program available in prime time is Olberman’s “Countdown”. Myriad 30 minute and one hour wingnut programs are featured in the same time slot, before and after.
Why must half of Olberman’s show contain sports programming? Why don’t they make Tucker, Billo, Greta, Rita, Scarface, P-head, Tweety, Glenn Peck-erhead, Lou Slobbs, et al put some sports programming on their brownshirt propaganda shows?
That would only be fair and balanced.
Howell is using “sports and anonymous sourcing” to create a straw man argument. The parallel is completely idiotic.
Cujo359 at 5:13 pm
I’m more concerned about the implication that Bush had it.
He totally creeps me out. Reminds me of all the male assholes I’ve had to deal with over the years. Patronizing idiots who smirk and you can’t trust further than you can throw them.
From a longtime lurker.
Jerome and Markos delivered a scintallating performance on CNBC. I hope it is repeated or otherwise is picked up.
They and the FDL community give me hope.
Thanks to all of you
hackworth at 69 — I think Olberman enjoys doing sports. He was a sports announcer for ESPN for quite a while and has also done sports radio. I’m certain that he does baseball coverage because he loves it. :) But the stuff from Deborah Howell…well, it pretty much speaks for itself this week and every week, doesn’t it?
darkblack at 64:
LOL! Silly wabbit!
I’ll bet you and everyone on FDL sleeps sounder than pretty much anyone in Iraq tonight *ilson, including the guy I’ve just finished blogging about. Me I’m going to go and throw up. Then I’m going to finish writing another article and then I’m going to take a looooooong looooooong shower to try to stop feeling dirty. With any luck I’ll sleep tonight.
Bionic @ 5:24 pm (#70) – Most men appear to see him differently. I don’t know why. He just strikes me as someone who is, at best, one of those twits who are only concerned about ingratiating themselves with other people. There’s no intellect there, and there doesn’t seem to be much compassion, either.
hackworth,
“Why must half of Olberman’s show contain sports programming?”
It all about ratings and money. Olberman is the top rated show on MSNBC. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it ; ) If it was one hour of straight politics, it would probably circle the drain ratings wise, IMO.
Awww, Mark. Sorry it’s been a tough day of it for you. It’s getting to the point that a lot of news makes me sick to my stomach, and it’s become very difficult not to get disgusted and cynical and angry all the time. I’ve been trying to come up with a series of posts on the way forward — things to work toward — but I can’t get it to gel in my brain, because I’m just so pissed off about so many things going on at the moment.
But have a hug from me for fighting the good fight. And give a smooch to your little one from Fiona.
Christy
WMR are holding by their story, 3 days in a row now, GE would not aprove a free press, about the prez and the first and the second ladie and old JB, pretzel…
the reason the Olbermann Show contains so much sports is the experience and inclinations of the host who comes from a sport-news background…I have never followed sports so I just space out on those sections of that TV show…no biggie!
Redd–Well the pardon is politically unfeasible- unless the results of NOT pardoning are even MORE unfeasible- imagine the trial- for weeks- Cheney testifying- lots of stuff bein dragged out of the closet- america riveted to the screen.
So which is worse politically. I suspect Clusterfuck will go down the same thought path daddy did- and reach the same conclusion. But who knows.
Thanks Christy when Dubhaltach gets back from Afghanistan I’ll give him a “Fiona Special” smooch … after I’ve hugged him half to death on my own behalf :-)
Thanks for the good work you do, MFI. ;(
Harry — interesting. I’m telling you, if anyone spots Rita Cosby lurking around the hotel, you’ll know for sure something is up — that woman can smell a tabloid story from a mile away and will ride it for all it’s worth. Her coverage of that missing girl from Alabama has been dogged…even when there hasn’t been anything to report, she’s been right there in front of the camera talking about how there’s nothing new to report. If she shows up on the scene, then we’re in for a doozy of a ride…
Mark — I didn’t realize he was still out of town. Please tell him to stay safe and keep his head down.
What keeps me smilin is that this defense is the VERY best that the gaggle of immensely paid immensely bright lawyers have to play. This is a very good mousetrap.
Thought it was the Mayflower hotel which Mrs. Clusterfuck allegedly moved to. This story is pretty funny- totally bullshit I’m sure- but really funny. Laura moves out cause Clusterfuck’s bangin ol Condi…? Hell if ya jump them bones- yer really jumpin BONES!
Redd- but Rita might be in disguise- as a- well- a reporter or something!
Olberman sees himself as a sport reporter degraded to his current position. I can understand his feelings.
al-Scooter at 17:
Sounds all too familiar! Salam’s description of the coming Iraq reads like the beginnings of Bosnia and Rwanda.
LOL Christy “keeping you head down” isn’t in the job description – Du’s a bomb disposal officer – good at it too, he’s gone from Lieutenant to first Captain, and now Senior Captain in three months flat.
my bad! I checked with Wayne: he indeed says Mayflower Hotel…
mea culpa, mea maxima culpa…
rwcole– Rita could only be in disguise if she kept her mouth shut and I do not think she is capable of that.
I can’t speak for Christy but I don’t really know of anyway to avoid a pardon, once granted. It’s a done deal at that point. There have been whiffs and grumbles at times about things like the Rich pardon – if you can prove it was done for some “improper purpose” could you do anything about it, but I really don’t think so.
The only thing you (by which I mean Congress) can do is impeach the President who gave it.
You(Congress) can also impeach the pardoned person as a method of preventing them from holding office again, but I don’t see any successful arguments touching on the validity of the pardon.
An interesting question, though, might go to the language of the pardon. The pardon is only for the things it mentions with relative specificity. A President can pardon someone before they have been charged or indicted, but the pardon goes to only what is mentioned in the pardon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OT – there was a filing by gov yesterday in the Michigan NSA case. Sounding just a teeny bit panicked.
Here’s the timeline. After filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed for partial Summary Judgment that the the first revealed surveillance plan (the “al Qaeda is calling” part – where apparently al Qaeda makes so many calls to Americans in America that it might be a front for a telemarketing company) is illegal. Plaintiffs piece together all the public statements by officials and use those as their statement of undisputed facts, since they know they are not likely to get much else from Gov. They also get an oral argument date of June 12.
Gov doesn’t file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) but asks for an extension bc it is busy secretifying the case.
Extension period is starting to expire, so Gov files for second extension of time to respond to MSJ and saying secretifying is hard work.
At expiration of second Extension to respond to MSJ, Gov files not a response to the MSJ, but a Motion to Stay Consideration of the MSJ and its own Motion to Dismiss Case as Secretified (something like that).
Judge enters her Order that got the Thurs/Friday driblets of press. It sets response dates to Govs Motion to Dismiss and a hearing on it in the future, but as to the Motion to Stay, it denies it.
Order then goes on to seemingly say: That was your shot at a response to the MSJ. I gave two extensions, I waited, I have a hearing coming up on June 12, and here’s the deal. You didn’t really file a response to the MSJ. YOu can show up at the oral argument if you want, but your record at that oral argument on the MSJ is your denied Motion to Stay.
Gov files as of 6-2 a somewhat panicked sounding “Motion for Clarification” saying — uh, state secrets, state secrets. It’s like ollie ollie oxen free. It works for everything, right? We didn’t really need to file a response the the MSJ did we? Nah, com’on. You’re saying that you can’t or won’t decide if it’s a state secret until you decide if its legal but that makes us nervous. Please let’s clear up that you didn’t really mean that, ‘K? You’re like, all good to go with us showing up at that hearing and saying “can’t be illegal cuz it’s secret” right”?
Right?
I mean, how can they know its illegal if its secret? Right? Based on piddly things like public statements by the Attorney General, head of NSA and President??? You can’t rely on those – we gotcha a much better affidavit over here by Mr. Negroponte, all notarized and pretty.
LOL. In its Order, the Court stated that Defendants “filed no response” to Plaintiffs’
Motion, but further stated that Defendants may appear at the June 12 hearing and “argue against it.” . . . Defendants respectfully submit that their Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay—both of which were based upon the United States’ assertion of the state secrets
privilege—were the appropriate response to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
I’m pretty darn sure she’ll let them argue whatever they want on state secrets, but you can tell someone read that order and gulped.
Hearing should be an interesting chicken/egg – which comes first?
Deciding a program can’t be exempted under state secrets if its illegal or deciding a program can’t be declared illegal if its details are not being disclosed under the rubric of state secrets.
Thanks, Christy, I am no longer hackworth at 69, I’ve adopted a different position *g*.
I was aware of Olberman’s ESPN past as you pointed out. I just find it inopportune b/c he is the ONLY thing we’ve got in the prime time hour and a big chunk of his program is devoted to sports. I find it unfortunate and dull, maybe its just me. I wish we had half the programming that the wingnuts have. Its no wonder many people are xenophobic, racist, ill informed and prone to vote against their own interests; ie: the many programs I listed in 69.
hee Mark, I didn’t realize he was bomb disposal. Yeah, no keeping your head down with that — but lots of steady as she goes. Just tell him to stay safe as possible, please. He’s valuable in these parts — as are you. :)
Re Olberman & sports:
I’m a big time fan of Olbermann. Actually I find it very refreshing to see the jock myth of (outside of sports) “there’s nothing there, there” being debunked. Another very intelligent ’sports type’ who comes to mind might be Mark Starr (MSNBC).
1) I like sports- so Olberman’s sports stuff doesn’t bother me.
2) Olberman does the political stuff in the first twenty minutes- so the people who are there for the sports get the politics as a bonus. This WORKS! If he did a little sex later in the show that would work to- as long as people have to hear his political message.
Mary at 92:
Mucho thanks for translation!
So it seems this one might have the legs to run with…fingers crossed!
Is Rita Crosby related to the detestable tabloid reporter Rita Skeeter from “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”?
The similarities are disturbing…
I hear ya rwcole. I’d considered that point. Perhaps he’s penetrating the grey matter of of a bonehead or two with the mix. I’m just being selfish. I mean, we lefty’s got next to nuthin on the tube. Let’s see, we’ve got Olberman, TDS, Colbert and that’s it. The’ve got all the ones I noted in 68 plus local and national news, Fox “news”, the morning fluffy “news” shows, COPS, I forgot Hannity and Buttfloss, Leno is pretty much a finger in the wind winger, prolly we can count Dave and Conan in our court…
Christy 83, Rita Cosby has visible righty leanings – she’d jump on the bandwagon once it got rolling, but until then she’ll sticj to missing white wimmen.
Just watching All the President’s Men and aside from the excellent acting, just watching these guys actually traveling and chasing down leads, using typewriters, phone books, rolodexes, dial phones and working like crazy makes me think what slackers the peeps in most of the MSM are now. They have the internets, cell phones, instantaneous access to wire reports… and they can’t even bother to google much less chase a story on foot and stick with it. sheesh. No gumption or stickwithitness. Course Woodward handed in his backbone a long time ago in exchange for becoming a favored mouthpiece.
With the usual and brave exceptions, of course.
mew thread
Re: Georgy and Condi sittin’ in a tree: As if we needed any more evidence of Republican media bias, but imagine if there was unsubstantiated gossip hitting the tabloids about say, a Dem horndog prez’s infidelities. Even before they had anything concrete, they would splash it all over the airwaves, speculating on the political effect of the rumors, and speculating whether it was responsible for those trashy rags to cover rumors. “We can’t ignore it, it’s ‘out there’.” Mark my words, there won’t be a breath of this in the commercial media unless there is evidence, and they won’t even look.
Mary -92
Can you imagine the fun when the civil filings begin?
wrt the pardon-limits question, I’d wondered about the legality of a pardon issued by a president who has become the subject of a House jc inquiry versus a pardon issued prior to a president becoming the subject, etc.
Curious minds wonder, is all.
ralphinlex
ralph
Some civil suits have started – they are getting govt intervention on state secrets too. I think they said there are 20 or soon will be 20 and Gov plans state secrets dismissal defenses or interventions for dismissal in all of them.
*s*
OT – Only caught the last few minutes of Markos & Jerome on the replay – will pray a video link can be found with at least highlights. What little I saw they looked great – and relaxed and amused…bless ‘em.
Mary 106 – tell us more about the civil suits – who, what, when & where – so many stories so little time! LOL!
Heartfelt thanks to Redd/Jane and all – 48-hours without FDL is maddening – still holding out hope I will get to Las Vegas & working overtime to make it so.
If there’s any banging going on it’s Clusterfuck and Jeff Gannon.
Condi’s got rugs to munch.