Woo hoo!

Fitz first!

no takers for the elusive zed?

Zero? Fitz!

never mind….

Dang, close.

I’d dearly love to get Darth Cheney on the witness stand–but in the Hague, where he and the Chimperator belong.

Thanks much, LHP. The devil truly is in the details, isn’t it? *g*

Fitz! probably knows that Dick can lie under oath as well as in his pressers (especially after shooting a 78-year-old man in the face and lying all over the place afterward). So why go through the security hassles to get more lies? (The spectacle of Dick lying under oath, with the potential of being nailed for perjury, is worth contemplating, even so.)

LHP,

As a nonlawyer, please explain. Does this filing by Fitz mean that Scooter’s team won’t call Shooter, either?

“green room”

Now that would be a nice touch- those benches outside the courtroom door are harder than hell- and there’s not enough light to read-

You never know who you can talk to either- and some of your “colleagues” out there are criminal enough to serve in the Bush administration..

More Corona…

Were they referring to security issues like
NIE business, or security egress/ingress issues?

Jack

Deadeye’s undisclosed location: not the witness stand, alas

If Fitzy doesn’t even make Cheney testify after his obvious participation in this criminal behavior- then he oughta run for congress on the gooper ticket..

Looks like a gooper- smells like a gooper- sounds like a gooper—He’s a GOOPER!!

can Cheney be called to testify via CCTV or something like that?

No howls of outrage from this popcorn eater. Sounds to me as if Fitz is keeping up the pressure on Irving. “It’s a pity no one is going to bail you out of this – not Cheney, not Rove, nobody.”

The national weather service is predicting good winds for the DC area – plenty strong enough to give Irving a good twist.

That pic is wonderful.

Peterr @ 14

The national weather service is predicting good winds for the DC area – plenty strong enough to give Irving a good twist.

cold enough to elicit a shiver

Although . . . (donning tinfoil hat)

Could Fitz have made a separate classified filing that contradicts your elegant reading between the lines? It might say something along of lines of “We do plan on having Mr. Cheney testify, but would like to keep that information private for security reasons at the request of the US Secret Service. They have been or will be in contact with the marshalls to coordinate security when Mr. Cheney’s testimony is anticipated to occur.”

wrt security, I am astonished to see BigTime and Little Junja participate in Friday’s Rumsfeld Pentagon lovefest and then today’s swearing-in of the New Boss, who now claims a need to go talk to commanders on the ground in Iraq before advising his c-in-c.

My guess is that the Executive Protection bubble, as it stretched to cover the Pentagon twice in the past three days, will be stretched to cover the Prettyman courthouse as well, should Mr. Veep’s presence be required. SecServ seems pretty well bolstered by the military and paramilitary for these joint appearances, unlike post-911 when the two were never together. Just because Fitz and his staff are only assigned part-time to Scooter’s case doesn’t mean the security details won’t rack up huge o/t morning, noon, and night to protect those motivated by Coultergeist to do harm somewhere in the vicinity.

nonetheless and notwithstanding my contrarian stance, hooray for looseheadprop on the FrontPage!

In June 2004, Fitzy interviewed the Prez, with his criminal lawyer, and Darth (but not under oath)…

Fitzy must know by now that Bush lied and
Cheney lied and they both knew exactly
what was going on…

I know the law is the law but if they
get a PASS… we have no alternative but
to impeach those bastards…

Jack

TeddySanFran @ 19

notwithstanding my contrarian stance…

you’re contrarian? always knew you as a city-dweller…

OT – MSNBC just reported John Edwards will announce his candidacy for president in New Orleans between xmas and new years.

Evan Bayh not running beacuse there are too many “Goliaths” to his “David”

well, David wasn’t quite such a pussy….

(sorry – couldn’t find a better word)

I like Edwards- but if he thinks that he will make it to the White House on the backs of the public’s deep concern about the poor- well he’s gettin way ahead of himself.

[danGerstein] on MSNBC a minute ago, didn’t like being cut off by the anchoress….

Like looseheadprop, Froomkin has a way of finding little nuggets that say so much . . .

Suddenly, Church Is Cancelled

Caroline Daniel of the Financial Times had early-Sunday-morning pool duty, and filed this report: “Ordered into Press Van Two, by 7:23am the pool assumed the proper sobriety of an anticipated church visit, only to be told five minutes later that: ‘church is cancelled.’ No reason was offered. Perhaps POTUS was keen to avoid a repeat of last week’s sermon from Rev. Luis Leon that insisted: ‘Repentance is changing your way, changing your mind, changing your direction. It requires the courage to acknowledge that you want to change, to change your direction.’ Or perhaps he wanted more time to commune with God from the back of a mountain bike, not a pew.”

I’m guessing that after last Sunday’s experience, someone at the White House checked the lectionary (set of appointed lessons for each Sunday) to see what would be on the preacher’s mind this week. Yesterday’s main reading was the story of John the Baptist preaching to the crowd he labeled a “brood of vipers,” for their hypocritical behavior. Among his suggestions for them: (a) those with two coats should give to those with none; (b) those with homes should care for those without; (c) tax collectors should collect only what is due, not any extra for themselves; and (d) soldiers should do their jobs, and not use their weapons and power to threaten and extort.

I can see why Bush would decide to take a pass on hearing a sermon based on that story.

Perhaps, lhp, Fitz means simply that he’s convinced DeadEye not to bring his shotgun when he’s called to testify?-

Sounds right, but it makes me sorry Big Time isn’t going to be on the witness stand.

Still things seem to be moving along at a nice clip. I’m really looking forward to this trial.

TeddySanFran @ 28

Perhaps, lhp, Fitz means simply that he’s convinced DeadEye not to bring his shotgun when he’s called to testify?-

LOL!

Or are we reading it backwards? Does “witness security” really mean “I’ve got the witness securely under wraps, unable to flee the country to avoid giving testimony.”

Conversely, maybe ALL of the witnesses are security problems and so security is going to be ridiculously tight to begin with. Then the addition of Dick Cheney to the mix wouldn’t be especially cumbersome. Or perhaps Cheney is going to testify via secure video link or something.

Peterr–

Well- or else he was plastered.

please excuse if this is too simplistic, but:

One doesn’t wanna call (and thus basically vouch for the credibility of) one who might be later indicted, does one?

nj progressive @ 9

LHP,

As a nonlawyer, please explain. Does this filing by Fitz mean that Scooter’s team won’t call Shooter, either?

It may mean that they haven’t got him on their witness list, or if he is on their witness list, it is only to keep open the possibility that they may call him if they need to.

Let me backtrack and explain. Weeks before the trial, both sides have to come up with a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Order. Among other things it contains both sides witness lists and exhibit lists.

you ALWAYS put much more on the lists than you actually intend to use because if it not on there, you may not be allowed to use it at trial. So, you put it on th elist to leave yourself the option.

Beyond that, informally, you say who you “expect” to call for real. If Scooter expected to cal Cheney, [resumably he would have to notify Fitz because he needs Fotz help with the security planning. At the very least, they have to notify the Marshall’s service and put that in their own progress report

Bay State Librul @ 11

More Corona…

Were they referring to security issues like
NIE business, or security egress/ingress issues?

Jack

Ingress/egress. if Cheney were coming, I would expect that they would need a cour order specifying who could be in the spectator’s gallery that day

Pretty funny website which describes different kinds of posters (and cartoon pics) at the link. Just pick one of the names on the pull down menu bar. Worth the trip.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

rwcole @ 13

If Fitzy doesn’t even make Cheney testify after his obvious participation in this criminal behavior- then he oughta run for congress on the gooper ticket..

Looks like a gooper- smells like a gooper- sounds like a gooper—He’s a GOOPER!!

He is not a gooper. Not a dem either.

punaise @ 14

can Cheney be called to testify via CCTV or something like that?

Actually, yes, if the parties agree. And if that court house has been rewired. All the new courthouses are set up for that. But the older courthouses often need to have ad hoc equipment brought in.

It is possible, but you still expect to see that in the security issues paragraph. Something like “we do not anticipate the need for a court order deineating the procedure for spectator screening on the day of the Vp’s testimony because the parties have agreed ….”

or something like that.

NICE pick up

Peterr @ 18

Although . . . (donning tinfoil hat)

Could Fitz have made a separate classified filing that contradicts your elegant reading between the lines? It might say something along of lines of “We do plan on having Mr. Cheney testify, but would like to keep that information private for security reasons at the request of the US Secret Service. They have been or will be in contact with the marshalls to coordinate security when Mr. Cheney’s testimony is anticipated to occur.”

Why would that be classified? Well except for the fact that in this administration previously published material somehow becomes retroactively classifed.

I doubt it, but it could happen. I don’t recall seeing a seperate classifed filing on the docket for that day though.

If Fitz was going to call Big Time to the stand, wouldn’t he want his SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY first?

TeddySanFran @ 19

wrt security, I am astonished to see BigTime and Little Junja participate in Friday’s Rumsfeld Pentagon lovefest and then today’s swearing-in of the New Boss, who now claims a need to go talk to commanders on the ground in Iraq before advising his c-in-c.

My guess is that the Executive Protection bubble, as it stretched to cover the Pentagon twice in the past three days, will be stretched to cover the Prettyman courthouse as well, should Mr. Veep’s presence be required. SecServ seems pretty well bolstered by the military and paramilitary for these joint appearances, unlike post-911 when the two were never together. Just because Fitz and his staff are only assigned part-time to Scooter’s case doesn’t mean the security details won’t rack up huge o/t morning, noon, and night to protect those motivated by Coultergeist to do harm somewhere in the vicinity.

I fully expect that every attendee of the Rumsfeld event was pre-screened as part of the planning for the event. I would be shocked if they were not.

That is different than random spectators at the courthouse. That’s why they would need to mention what pre-screening procedures they intended to put in place

TeddySanFran @ 28

Perhaps, lhp, Fitz means simply that he’s convinced DeadEye not to bring his shotgun when he’s called to testify?-

LOL

Looseheadprop @ 39

Peterr @ 18

Although . . . (donning tinfoil hat)

Could Fitz have made a separate classified filing that contradicts your elegant reading between the lines? It might say something along of lines of “We do plan on having Mr. Cheney testify, but would like to keep that information private for security reasons at the request of the US Secret Service. They have been or will be in contact with the marshalls to coordinate security when Mr. Cheney’s testimony is anticipated to occur.”

Why would that be classified? Well except for the fact that in this administration previously published material somehow becomes retroactively classifed.

I doubt it, but it could happen. I don’t recall seeing a seperate classifed filing on the docket for that day though.

Classified, in order to use a bit of public mis-direction to enable the SS to use the element of surprise as part of their security arrangements.

That being said, I’m guessing it’d really be a stretch . . .

Great catch on the whole topic!

jane hamsher @ 29

Sounds right, but it makes me sorry Big Time isn’t going to be on the witness stand.

Still things seem to be moving along at a nice clip. I’m really looking forward to this trial.

You and me both. I hope to be able to snag some time to watch some of it live.

Now look at the “safe” areas. The south of the country, which the administration claims is stable, is run by fanatical religious parties, militias and street gangs, most of whom impose Iranian-style restrictions on people’s rights and liberties. For minorities (like Christians) and for women, the new Iraq has been one of persecution and punishment. In many Sunni areas in the center of the country, a Taliban-style puritanism is being enforced. Amid the chaos, the groups that can provide security tend to be the most thuggish and extreme in their political views. And wherever there are mixed populations—throughout Iraq’s cities—a gruesome campaign of ethnic cleansing has produced hundreds of thousands of internal refugees. Almost 2 million Iraqis—8 percent of the population—have fled the country entirely.

In the wake of this “model,” not a single Arab regime feels any pressure to reform. They say to their people, “Do you want a democracy like they have in Iraq?” (The refrain echoes beyond the region. Vladimir Putin makes the same point in Russia, to justify his own usurpations of power.) Look around. The Saudi royals are stronger than ever. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has jailed his opponents. The Syrian regime, once troubled, is more confident. Iran is ascendant. And the United States has become radioactive. Were America to come out in favor of clean water, we would find people opposed in the Arab world today.

(Newsweek)

Pretty clear argument!!

Thanks lhp, great post, great thread.

portia.vz @ 31

Conversely, maybe ALL of the witnesses are security problems and so security is going to be ridiculously tight to begin with. Then the addition of Dick Cheney to the mix wouldn’t be especially cumbersome. Or perhaps Cheney is going to testify via secure video link or something.

I have not heard that they are restricting the public from attending–a Constitutional problem that. I have heard there is some concern about how much space will be left for the public after they reserve spaces in th egallery for all the press that wants to attend and for spillover personel from the trial teams that can’t fit at the lawyer’s tables.

With all those reserved seats, there won’t be much room left for the great unwashed masses

jayt @ 33

please excuse if this is too simplistic, but:

One doesn’t wanna call (and thus basically vouch for the credibility of) one who might be later indicted, does one?

Thank you! Give that man a cigar. Are you a lawyer? You should be

neurophius @ 40

If Fitz was going to call Big Time to the stand, wouldn’t he want his SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY first?

You can use prior recorded statements from, for example, a tv interview or from unsworn interview transcripts to impeach a witnesses credibility on the stand.

it makes perjury less of a slam dunk though.

If you have prior sworn testimony that contradicts current sworn testimony a fortiori one of them is perjury

I’m sure this has been covered on one of the many informative Plame threads, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Presidential immunity thing does it?

Probably not, but just thought I’d ask

Gotta run, will check back later

Peterr @ 43

Looseheadprop @ 39

Peterr @ 18

Although . . . (donning tinfoil hat)

Could Fitz have made a separate classified filing that contradicts your elegant reading between the lines? It might say something along of lines of “We do plan on having Mr. Cheney testify, but would like to keep that information private for security reasons at the request of the US Secret Service. They have been or will be in contact with the marshalls to coordinate security when Mr. Cheney’s testimony is anticipated to occur.”

Why would that be classified? Well except for the fact that in this administration previously published material somehow becomes retroactively classifed.

I doubt it, but it could happen. I don’t recall seeing a seperate classifed filing on the docket for that day though.

Classified, in order to use a bit of public mis-direction to enable the SS to use the element of surprise as part of their security arrangements.

That being said, I’m guessing it’d really be a stretch . . .

Great catch on the whole topic!

I put nothing past those guys. So, you never know

John Casper @ 46

Thanks lhp, great post, great thread.

Aw shucks, you guys are makin’ me blush.

john in sacramento @ 50

I’m sure this has been covered on one of the many informative Plame threads, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Presidential immunity thing does it?

Probably not, but just thought I’d ask

Gotta run, will check back later

The president is immune while in office from prosecution for crimes. The remedy is to impeach him.

Disagreement exists over whether you can prosecute him after a sucessful impeachment. Noone knows because no one has tried YET

Assuming arrangements can be made after the start of a trial for a previously ‘unplanned for’ witness to testify, seems like a lot could be going on. If Libby expected to call Dick to testify and the security needed was noted pretrial, how would Libby know Fitz intended to call him too? In other words, could team Libby take the stance now that they don’t plan to have Dick testify as a way to try to have Fitz tip his hand wrt the security detail?

Also, it seems Fitz’s MO is to lock down a crucial node (Libby) with an indictment and then induce him to bring others in. I agree with Peterr above, I see this as a profound exercise in caution combined with a hellish ability to tighten the screws by turning sworn allies against each other. If Cheney gets snared under oath, it will be Scooter’s fault, not Fitzgerald’s.

LHP – great post and great information!

It’s going to be fascinating to see what really happens at this trial!

Muzzy @ 54

Assuming arrangements can be made after the start of a trial for a previously ‘unplanned for’ witness to testify, seems like a lot could be going on. If Libby expected to call Dick to testify and the security needed was noted pretrial, how would Libby know Fitz intended to call him too? In other words, could team Libby take the stance now that they don’t plan to have Dick testify as a way to try to have Fitz tip his hand wrt the security detail?

Also, it seems Fitz’s MO is to lock down a crucial node (Libby) with an indictment and then induce him to bring others in. I agree with Peterr above, I see this as a profound exercise in caution combined with a hellish ability to tighten the screws by turning sworn allies against each other. If Cheney gets snared under oath, it will be Scooter’s fault, not Fitzgerald’s.

Interesting pick up. It really is all in the details.

Thanks Siun, and everybody.

I think this trial will shed a lot of light on many questions. At least I hope it will.

If I were Darth, I would be doing shooters of Maloxx or Pepto.

Looseheadprop @ 48

jayt @ 33

please excuse if this is too simplistic, but:

One doesn’t wanna call (and thus basically vouch for the credibility of) one who might be later indicted, does one?

Thank you! Give that man a cigar. Are you a lawyer? You should be

Ummm….yeah.

Walked away about 6 years ago (LONG story): just finished the reinstatement process a couple of weeks ago.

Nobody knows who I am anymore (which is ok – fits well into my basic trial strategy of – “never let ‘em see you coming”)

All the damn judges are ex-prosecutors..

(though I’ve learned, right here, that all prosecutors are not the beasts I perceived them to be)

Thanks for this, LHP.

This is very tinfoilly, but…does it ever happen that someone is questioned via TV monitor that’s viewed in court? So the person can be in a room elsewhere in the courthouse, and presumably no extra security would be needed?

Bush’s New Strategy: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam

Getting back to witnesses. I understand that
lawyers for two reporters are balking at having
their clients testify at the Libby Trial…
They remain nameless to date…
Some suggest that it may be Mrs. Greenspan
and possibly Walter Pincus…
Have you heard anything on that?

Jack

Great post, LHP–I’m glad you’re picking up some of the Plame beat.

I wonder if you can address something else. In his discussion of privileged discussion, Fitz mentioned that none of what HE would ask his witnesses would cover anything that was privileged (though he implied that there was a part of their testimony that WAS privileged, just that he didn’t ask them). Now I suppose this could relate to any number of known witnesses: Edelman, Addington, Martin, especially (though I wonder if you agree). But I do know that in the May 5 discussion about whether Bush and Dick corroborated Libby’s lies story about the NIE, he implied that some of their testimony was privileged (Wells was insisting on getting the testimony, Fitz was strongly suggesting he couldn’t have it, and then Fitz pulled this very graceful headfake that meant he didn’t have to reveal those details in the first place).

I wonder if all this makes sense to you. I think your argument is pretty compelling (though I’m surprised, given the way the rest of his recent filings depend on Dick). But his reference there seemed almost exactly to mirror his reference in the May 5 hearing.

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

There’s radar for spotting planes, and there’s gaydar for spotting gays, but what do you call the way lhp picked up on jayt as a fellow lawyer?

JDar?

Thanks for the Fitz-fix, LHP. Fitz is what brought me to FDL lo those many weeks ago. By the way, Beth at 63 or anyone else….I’m still learning blog-guistics. WT hell is IANAL?

retirin’ in five @ 65

Thanks for the Fitz-fix, LHP. Fitz is what brought me to FDL lo those many weeks ago. By the way, Beth at 63 or anyone else….I’m still learning blog-guistics. WT hell is IANAL?

I Am Not A Lawyer

Peterr @ 64

There’s radar for spotting planes, and there’s gaydar for spotting gays, but what do you call the way lhp picked up on jayt as a fellow lawyer?

JDar?

LOL. for cold cuts, use Dar es Salami

Thanks Peterr.

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

This is true… but I, and many more
are hoping that it will be an indictment against
the cabal who lied us into war…..
Maybe, just maybe, somehow, somebody will “trip up” and will find the smoking gun like
finding out that Nixon had tapes.

Jack

Well now’s the time for Boosh to decide whether to give Scoots the Christmas present he wants so badly…

If Cheney is NOT going to be forced to testify- then there may be less need for a pardon.

In the McVeigh trial the jury in Denver got closed circuit testimony from federal prisoners, IIRC.

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

Well, I tend to think you’re right – this one was pretty much decided on pre-trial issues, I think. If the grey-mail issues are gone (and I’m not an expert, but I think that they are) – this one’s a pretty cut-and-dried perjury tial – and Scoot’s toast.

And, btw, if Scoot’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, which they would never do, the prosecution can only cross-examine as to the questions which the Libby-Lawyerws aksed him – it’s not open season at all.

Peterr @ 64

There’s radar for spotting planes, and there’s gaydar for spotting gays, but what do you call the way lhp picked up on jayt as a fellow lawyer?

JDar?

Crap.

Busted.

all i’ve got to say is, any law school in the country that doesn’t make this blog required reading must be churning out nothing but ambulance chasers …….

Bay State Librul @ 61

Getting back to witnesses. I understand that
lawyers for two reporters are balking at having
their clients testify at the Libby Trial…
They remain nameless to date…
Some suggest that it may be Mrs. Greenspan
and possibly Walter Pincus…
Have you heard anything on that?

Jack

Just what I read in the papers and in the public documents on the docket

Re: Presiduncial security

LHP, I hadn’t thought of the security angle, but it’s pretty stringent for people covered by the PSD.

We’ve had preznits on our campus three times since I joined the faculty here at SemiSolid State U. When the President (Bubba Clinton) spoke in an open area, the whole campus got closed for the day. Messes up your syllabus, it does …

BC — who leaves y’all with this hint. Don’t be ordering rifle ’scopes around the time the Preznit’s coming to town.

jayt @ 73

Peterr @ 64

There’s radar for spotting planes, and there’s gaydar for spotting gays, but what do you call the way lhp picked up on jayt as a fellow lawyer?

JDar?

Crap.

Busted.

Don’t look at me!! I didn’t say anything.

Lol

emptywheel @ 62

Great post, LHP–I’m glad you’re picking up some of the Plame beat.

I wonder if you can address something else. In his discussion of privileged discussion, Fitz mentioned that none of what HE would ask his witnesses would cover anything that was privileged (though he implied that there was a part of their testimony that WAS privileged, just that he didn’t ask them). Now I suppose this could relate to any number of known witnesses: Edelman, Addington, Martin, especially (though I wonder if you agree). But I do know that in the May 5 discussion about whether Bush and Dick corroborated Libby’s lies story about the NIE, he implied that some of their testimony was privileged (Wells was insisting on getting the testimony, Fitz was strongly suggesting he couldn’t have it, and then Fitz pulled this very graceful headfake that meant he didn’t have to reveal those details in the first place).

I wonder if all this makes sense to you. I think your argument is pretty compelling (though I’m surprised, given the way the rest of his recent filings depend on Dick). But his reference there seemed almost exactly to mirror his reference in the May 5 hearing.

I don’t mean to be cute. I noticed that he didn’t specify WHICH privledge. Is he talking about Executive Privledge? Or Attorney/Client Privledge? Is anyone taking the postion that Libby was either the President’s or VP’s lawyer?

Very different rules depending on which one is involved.

Looseheadprop @ 78

emptywheel @ 62

Great post, LHP–I’m glad you’re picking up some of the Plame beat.

I wonder if you can address something else. In his discussion of privileged discussion, Fitz mentioned that none of what HE would ask his witnesses would cover anything that was privileged (though he implied that there was a part of their testimony that WAS privileged, just that he didn’t ask them). Now I suppose this could relate to any number of known witnesses: Edelman, Addington, Martin, especially (though I wonder if you agree). But I do know that in the May 5 discussion about whether Bush and Dick corroborated Libby’s lies story about the NIE, he implied that some of their testimony was privileged (Wells was insisting on getting the testimony, Fitz was strongly suggesting he couldn’t have it, and then Fitz pulled this very graceful headfake that meant he didn’t have to reveal those details in the first place).

I wonder if all this makes sense to you. I think your argument is pretty compelling (though I’m surprised, given the way the rest of his recent filings depend on Dick). But his reference there seemed almost exactly to mirror his reference in the May 5 hearing.

I don’t mean to be cute. I noticed that he didn’t specify WHICH privledge. Is he talking about Executive Privledge? Or Attorney/Client Privledge? Is anyone taking the postion that Libby was either the President’s or VP’s lawyer?

Very different rules depending on which one is involved.

Though giving that Addington will be called (almost without doubt), then you’re already into attorney-client privilege, no? At least in Dick’s mind.

We had the Head Dick come thru town a few weeks ago on a hunting trip. There were local cops at every intersection on the way to the airport, ready to stop traffic, and the state police shut down the interstate going west. I was travelling east for about 10 miles and didn’t see anyone on the other side, except state police. For all I know Dick was still back in “camp” sipping coffee, but there they were, dozens of cops, at our expense, making sure it was clear. I was so much wanting to see his motorcade and then flip him off.

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

yup

Bay State Librul @ 69

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

This is true… but I, and many more
are hoping that it will be an indictment against
the cabal who lied us into war…..
Maybe, just maybe, somehow, somebody will “trip up” and will find the smoking gun like
finding out that Nixon had tapes.

Jack

Remember what Pat said at the press conference: that he could nt make a determination of whether or not various people had committed crimes because Scooter’s lies had “kicked sand in the umpire’s eyes” so he could not make the call.

He never said that no one else had committed a crime. He never said he did not strongly suspect that someone else had committed crimes. just that he could not be sure b/c of Liby’s perjury and OBSRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

It’s not simply that Libby told a lie. it’s that Libby told a lie to prevent Fitz from learning the truth.

Though giving that Addington will be called (almost without doubt)

By who?

Scoots is going to trial, with no visible help, and will be convicted – nobody’s gonna show up with helpful testimony – he appeals til the cows come home – then he’s pardoned.

What am I missing?

Libby’s going to be the the rotten step-child nobody wants to talk about – until Christmas 2008, at which time, he’ll quietly be pardoned.

Libby’s nothing – I’m still holding out hope that Fitz really *does* have something up his sleeve.

jayt @ 72

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. Libby might want it to try to demonstrate that he had a lousy memory for details, but given all the evidence we’ve already seen, that’s a hard case to make. Plus, you know, if Scooter’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, then Fitz gets to cross-examine him.

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

Well, I tend to think you’re right – this one was pretty much decided on pre-trial issues, I think. If the grey-mail issues are gone (and I’m not an expert, but I think that they are) – this one’s a pretty cut-and-dried perjury tial – and Scoot’s toast.

And, btw, if Scoot’s lawyers put Cheney on the stand, which they would never do, the prosecution can only cross-examine as to the questions which the Libby-Lawyerws aksed him – it’s not open season at all.

it’s not Team Fitz that is looking to broaden the scope of the topics under discussion, Team Irving wants to expand the topics to create bright shiny objects to confuse and distract the jury

1,366 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

looseheadprop and the Firepup Patriots:

Thanx for the post and, though I ain’t a barrister, I too figured that Fitz wouldn’t wanna call a subject who may very well be indicted later…and this also keeps the pardon pistol in Bush’s holster. This seems to be Fitz’s modus op… go slowly and carefully up the stairs, don’t miss nuthin’ and don’t leave any windows open. A trial gets public all the testimony necessary for conviction and clears the dust outta the umpire’s eyes to go after the underlyin’ crime.

It IS frustratin’ fer us folks who jest wanna line the bastards up against the wall and have done with it…but pardons are the only way these bastards get off and that’s the kiss of political (and impeachment) death. No overturns on appeal, ask the prosecutor in Iran Contra.

Thanx again, looseheadprop, I always look forward to yer analysis ‘cuz it always makes sense of the law in a way that increases respect for the process…do you play bridge? I betcher a dynamite defender.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE’RE GUNNA HAVE TARGET PRACTICE IN JANUARY!!!

emptywheel @ 79

Looseheadprop @ 78

emptywheel @ 62

Great post, LHP–I’m glad you’re picking up some of the Plame beat.

I wonder if you can address something else. In his discussion of privileged discussion, Fitz mentioned that none of what HE would ask his witnesses would cover anything that was privileged (though he implied that there was a part of their testimony that WAS privileged, just that he didn’t ask them). Now I suppose this could relate to any number of known witnesses: Edelman, Addington, Martin, especially (though I wonder if you agree). But I do know that in the May 5 discussion about whether Bush and Dick corroborated Libby’s lies story about the NIE, he implied that some of their testimony was privileged (Wells was insisting on getting the testimony, Fitz was strongly suggesting he couldn’t have it, and then Fitz pulled this very graceful headfake that meant he didn’t have to reveal those details in the first place).

I wonder if all this makes sense to you. I think your argument is pretty compelling (though I’m surprised, given the way the rest of his recent filings depend on Dick). But his reference there seemed almost exactly to mirror his reference in the May 5 hearing.

I don’t mean to be cute. I noticed that he didn’t specify WHICH privledge. Is he talking about Executive Privledge? Or Attorney/Client Privledge? Is anyone taking the postion that Libby was either the President’s or VP’s lawyer?

Very different rules depending on which one is involved.

Though giving that Addington will be called (almost without doubt), then you’re already into attorney-client privilege, no? At least in Dick’s mind.

That’s what I’m wondering. Also, the privledge belongs to the client not the lawyer, so if Cheney previously answered questions (like during the interview) that involved otherwise privledged matters, the cat is out of the bag and the privledge is waived.

Since you cannot selectively waive, once Cheney (or any other “client”) does that, all testimony relating to the transaction is fair game.

Scottfree @ 80

We had the Head Dick come thru town a few weeks ago on a hunting trip. There were local cops at every intersection on the way to the airport, ready to stop traffic, and the state police shut down the interstate going west. I was travelling east for about 10 miles and didn’t see anyone on the other side, except state police. For all I know Dick was still back in “camp” sipping coffee, but there they were, dozens of cops, at our expense, making sure it was clear. I was so much wanting to see his motorcade and then flip him off.

You see my point then? If he was coming to the courthouse, there should be SOME kind of mention.

of what happened in the days leading up to and surrounding the leak of Valerie Plame’s name.

It may well be that the story, whether or not it rises to the level of provable criminal case, will show quite clearly that the W/H conspired to punish Joe Wilson by destroying his wife’s career. I believe it will reveal them for what they are nad they will all be convicted in the court of public opinion.

A court with no appeals process.

jayt @ 83

Though giving that Addington will be called (almost without doubt)

By who?

By Fitz. Addington is witness to the fact that Libby asked him two questions: 1) what paperwork would there be if a CIA employee’s spouse traveled overseas and 2) can a president insta-declassify something (which might be a CIA operative’s identity, or might be the NIE, depending on whom you ask).

The Addington testimony is actually interesting (and potentially very controversial). In the indictment, the only listed Addington conversation happened after the Judy meeting with Scooter on July 8. But in a recent filing, Fitz revealed that Libby asked Addington about the insta-declassification after July 6 (that is, in response to Joe’s op-ed). Now it’s possible that Fitz expects to get from Addington what he might have gotten from Cheney–the implication that Libby was ordered to leak something momentous on the same day he leaked Plame’s ID to Judy, and thus won’t call Dick (I do find LHP’s argument pretty compelling on this point). But in any case, Addington had this conversation either right before or right after his conversaiton with Judy, which is proof that he knew of Plame before his conversation with Russert.

NorskeFlamethrower @ 85

1,366 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

looseheadprop and the Firepup Patriots:

Thanx for the post and, though I ain’t a barrister, I too figured that Fitz wouldn’t wanna call a subject who may very well be indicted later…and this also keeps the pardon pistol in Bush’s holster. This seems to be Fitz’s modus op… go slowly and carefully up the stairs, don’t miss nuthin’ and don’t leave any windows open. A trial gets public all the testimony necessary for conviction and clears the dust outta the umpire’s eyes to go after the underlyin’ crime.

It IS frustratin’ fer us folks who jest wanna line the bastards up against the wall and have done with it…but pardons are the only way these bastards get off and that’s the kiss of political (and impeachment) death. No overturns on appeal, ask the prosecutor in Iran Contra.

Thanx again, looseheadprop, I always look forward to yer analysis ‘cuz it always makes sense of the law in a way that increases respect for the process…do you play bridge? I betcher a dynamite defender.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE’RE GUNNA HAVE TARGET PRACTICE IN JANUARY!!!

I have never played bridge. Don’t know the rules. Is defender a term of art in bridge.

My almost (please let me get a signed decree before the end of the year) ex-husband thinks I am uncivilized b/c i am completely clueless about bridge.

I grew up in a very working class household. I am the first person in me extended famly to go to college. We played poker, for pretzels, in my backyard.

LHP – exactly – that’s why I threw my tidbit out there. That and my almost new RV that I had just picked up an hour before got forced into a construction zone and ended up with damage from a misplaced traffic cone. Grrrr

New thread upstairs

Looseheadprop @ 90

I have never played bridge. Don’t know the rules. Is defender a term of art in bridge.

My almost (please let me get a signed decree before the end of the year) ex-husband thinks I am uncivilized b/c i am completely clueless about bridge.

I grew up in a very working class household. I am the first person in me extended famly to go to college. We played poker, for pretzels, in my backyard.

Yeah, defense is a bridge term-of-art. I grew up in a blue-collar household, too. Bridge was thing you crossed on your way to work. I learned bridge in college, but I prefer cribbage or poker.

BC

Looseheadprop @ 92

New thread upstairs

Thanks, LHP

amateur mod note – just released BC’s comment which for somereason hit moderation – just letting folks know. – Siun

Looseheadprop @ 86

emptywheel @ 79

That’s what I’m wondering. Also, the privledge belongs to the client not the lawyer, so if Cheney previously answered questions (like during the interview) that involved otherwise privledged matters, the cat is out of the bag and the privledge is waived.

Since you cannot selectively waive, once Cheney (or any other “client”) does that, all testimony relating to the transaction is fair game.

Here’s the bit I’m most fascinated by. Fitz was thinking of calling Dick for two reasons–one, to get him to verify his annotations and admit to how obsessed he was with responding to Joe, and two, to get him under oath wrt the NIE leaking story. Here’s a bit of conversation RE whether Libby can have Dick/Bush interview transcripts so he can prove he didn’t leak the NIE wildly. Best as I can tell, from this and any subsequent filing, Fitz gets out of turning over whatever Bush and Dick had to say on the NIE with some fancy footwork here.

MR. WELLS: I started out making what I characterized as a Brady request to the extent that either the vice president or the president have testified that they did authorize disclosure.

THE COURT: Testified?

MR. WELLS: I’m making a Brady request. I believe there is testimony. I believe there is testimony or interviews.

THE COURT: I didn’t know they had testified.

MR. WELLS: I don’t know the procedure whether they talked to somebody in somebody’s office. But to the extent he has statements from either the vice president or the president, to the extent that disclosure of the NIE was authorized and I believe that maybe that the testimony does not tie it down to a particular day, only that it did take place, I believe I’m entitled to that. All I asked Mr. Fitzgerald from the beginning is are you going to put this stuff in just because of background, because it happened. If you’re not contending that there is anything wrong with it, I don’t need the Brady. I can open on it with comfort.
But if he’s laying back and going to say, ah, got you, I have a right, I believe, if such testimony exists, to know it.

So then they go into a discussion about this–about how Fitz is going to use it [Libby wants to know so he can figure out whether he can call Woodward and use it to incriminate Armitage and thereby distract the jury, among other reasons.] And then, seemingly, Fitz gets out of having to provide Dick and Bush’s testimony with this bit:

THE COURT: I understand that he might open the door in some way that would cause you to have to bring in some information but it seems to me that, if you have any information right now that you know would potentially undermine Mr. Libby’s credibility or suggest something sinister on his part if he brings out information about these earlier events, then it seems to me he has a right to know that.

MR. FITZGERALD: And he has it. It is the grand jury transcript. It is not a big deal. It is his client saying I’m not sure if I had the authority when I talked on July 2nd or not, and he has it. But it is not a focus.

THE COURT: You don’t have anything that would definitively show that he did not have authority.

MR. FITZGERALD: As to the timing, no, I don’t have anything that sets the date other than before, my belief is it is before July 8th. Besides saying July 8 it happened by, I can’t move the date into June or July, a specific date.

In other words, Fitz uses Libby’s own testimony (in which he basically says he got once-in-a-lifetime authorization to leak what he leaked to Judy, but doesn’t know whether he was authorized to leak to Woodward or David Sanger), rather than Dick and Bush’s.

But I’ve always wondered why he didn’t just turn over DIck and Bush’s interview transcripts.

Give jayt @33 two cigars. I was going to ask you about his point, but you preempted me and answered him. Even if Fitzgerald is not sparing Cheney because an indictment might be in his future, I am not despairing about that crew coming to justice. Harry Reid (curse him for the moment) said in his interview with Bob Geiger that investigating the manipulation of information leading up to the attack on Iraq was a top priority for him. Surely that would draw in the CIA Leak Case, and as you told me before, lhp, Congress should have the power to subpoena the evidence Fitzgerald has in his hands as well as Fitzgerald himself. I’ve kind of lost interest in the Libby trial if it is limited to lying and perjury (tho’ it has to be prosecuted), but I am looking forward to hearings, hearings, hearings, and hopefully the Wilsons’ civil suit will not be thrown out.

beth meacham @ 63

IANAL, but it seems to me that Fitz doesn’t need Cheney’s testimony to prove that Libby committed perjury. ….

This trial isn’t about anything but Scooter’s lies to the Grand Jury and the FBI.

Well, that is right, isn’t it!? Great point, Beth.

lhp, this’ll be left behind, but…

My almost (please let me get a signed decree before the end of the year) ex-husband…

I hear you. I’m rooting for you. It’s SUCH a drain on one’s focus and energy. I’m going through it myself. For over a year now. The clouds will part, the head will clear. It will happen, and then you can enjoy the trial.

Jeff Gannon had no such problems with security measures… just sayin…