I certainly have no inside knowledge. All I have is a familiarity with courts in general. One continuance is usually allowed, if requested. There is scant “down side” to the defense in requesting a continuance, unless they anticipate raising some speedy trial issue in the event of conviction. (And that’s unlikely, given the speed of the federal system.) About the only other down side–for the defense–in their asking for a continuance, would be that when you continue, it gives your opponent more time to perfect his case.

Even Matt Apuzzo’s story for the AP about these quite-clear Status Report filings yesterday was so poorly written and mostly beside the point, that I could not make out what activity or development he was actually attempting to report, until after I’d seen the filings myself… [Toni Locy - who he replaced on this case for the Associated Press - was doing a much better job of covering the filings and hearings, I thought. I also recall one very good article by Pete Yost of the AP about a complicated filing in the case.]

One other corporate media person who has been more or less covering the Libby beat, as a sidelight — though he’s not a reporter, but a producer – is Joel Seidman of NBC, who has probably done the most competent job overall, of describing the court filings, when he does report. And Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun when he covers the occasional filing, does a good job.

In general though, the corporate media seems to be downright hostile to this prosecution, which so intimately intertwines with their own profession. I think we’re probably going to need the coverage of bloggers like Jane and Christy to really get a clear picture of what actually happens in that courtroom, and to cut through the ongoing blackout and spin that otherwise pass for the corporate media’s coverage of the case against Scooter Libby.

Reiteration for the record: The current trial start date is January 16, 2007 (jury selection first, followed by the trial).

The news from Britain oughta be on tonight’s t.v. news. I wonder if they have the guts to ignore it. It’s enough to bring the whole ball of was apart if the Rich allow it. Remember, the Constitution might not be a ’suicide pact’, but the Rich can turn our system into a living Hell if it suits them.

The monied class ought to want to be careful about how the rule of law applies. It’s in their interest to maintain the status quo ante, and very pissed-off peones usually want the status quo ante changed. And changed in ways unfavorable to large collections of capital.

cf: French Revolution, Russian Revolution.

BC

perris @ 63

what is the process of impeaching a scj?

Same as impeaching anyone else, like say a President or VP: charges voted on by the House of Representatives, and a trial in the Senate.

With the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate. The impeachment of a SCJ would be a really uncomfortable affair for the Chief.

BC

But, I agree Alito and Roberts might not feel at all beholden, now that they have their robes.

The crap is getting soooo deep it’ll be a miracle if Fitzie doesn’t get a conviction going away and if the evidence taken in that case doesn’t incriminate the entire White House.

The news from Britain oughta be on tonight’s t.v. news. I wonder if they have the guts to ignore it. It’s enough to bring the whole ball of was apart if the Rich allow it. Remember, the Constitution might not be a ’suicide pact’, but the Rich can turn our system into a living Hell if it suits them.

what is the process of impeaching a scj?

It is essentially the same process used to impeach any other Federal official. Please recall that impeachment is tantamount to an indictment, should a vote to impeach someone for high crimes and misdemeanors pass the House of Representatives. Next, as has been discussed in previous threads, a trial in the Senate would follow, with conviction secured by a two thirds majority vote.

For additional information, please consult this reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ted_States