The Smiths are off for a well deserved vacation, and I hope Christy gets all rested up for the ferocious blogging that will mark the celebration of Fitzmas (can you believe it’s just around the corner?) While she is away, the firepuppies have gotten loose and are running all over the website during Christy’s morning post hours. I hope we don’t wreck the place. *g*
Anyway, I have signed on to give you all a bit of a primer to help you get ready for Fitzmas. I used to be a professor and old habits die hard. I already know that I want to do an overview of the stages of a criminal trial, a piece (maybe 2 if it runs too long ) on the Rules of Evidence, and a separate piece on the exceptions to the rule against Hearsay, as I expect that to be a topic that will come up frequently.
But since this is an "inmates takes over the asylum" kind of week, I thought I would ask you what you would like to know more about from the wonderful world of law or law enforcement to clear up any questions you may have, so that you can enter into the Fitzmas season feeling fully prepared to completely enjoy and understand the festivities.
So, what would you like to know? Some questions I will try to deal with in the thread. Some may spark their own full post.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
I can’t be first,can I?
Do you think the Scooter Libby trial could lead to other indictments? Not of Scooter for other charges,but of other higher ups in the administration?
ROOTZ!
An Angry Old Broad @ 1
One lives in hope.
How different are the requirements between a federal suit and a civil suit in regards to the production of evidence? What other key differences are there?
And is it possible for a federal prosecution to use material produced in a civil suit?
(I think I have a handle on this, but I think the larger audience of FirePups and Plamemaniacs should get this down before we head into the civil suit.)
OT — Fifteen Republicans Squeaked by in 2006, Analysis Shows; means we still have plenty of opportunity, plenty of work to do. If you’re in one of the states/districts, what will you be doing between now and 2008?
Here’s a question for ya LHP and it should be a front pager on every blog:
Actually, a less flip answer is this:
Fitz said at the Libby indictment press conference that because Scooter lied, it made it (at that time) impossible to know conclusively who leaked what to whom and when.
This is the ssence of obstruction of justice. That does not precluded the possibility that a conclusion could be had through the develpoement of other evidence through the not yet closed investigation, or through revelations that come out during trial.
Even when you think you have investigated the shit out of you case, and even when you have had lots of pre-trial discovery, SOMETHING brand new always comes uot at trial to the surpise of everyone.
Don’t know why, but it always seems to happen.
A question regarding libel law.
Can a political candidate ever sue an opponent or journalist or critic for defamation? If so what is the standard, and why do we never hear of such suits.
Thanks lhp.
Prior to sporting events, they always list the top five (or so) things to watch.
I assume in any trial, there are literally a limitless set of facts. At the same time, again, I assume that there are a very finite number of “decision points” upon which the verdict will turn. If you could shed any light on these, I’d be very interested.
Rayne @ 4
In a civil suit, both sides are required to produce to the other side any non-privledged material tht the other side asks for so long as the request is reasonably calulated to produce admissable evidence or lead to the future production of admissable evidence.
In a crimanial case, the prosecution gives fairly complete discovery to the defense, though in stages. Some discovery such as prior witness statements are not due to be produced until the witness testifies(however, as a courtesy to keep the trail moving it is usually produced much sooner).
The defense is not required to give much in the way of discovery beyond the names of it’s witnesses and certain information relating to “affirmative defenses” (Like insanity defenses or alibi) on which the defense bears some burden of proof.
In this case the defense has had to give something akin to, but legally distinct from, discovery by virtue of the CIPA process.
In order to get documents it wants to use at trail decalssified, it had to tell the court and Gov’t what documents it wants to use.
Pectopah @ 7
Yes. You would be surprised how often it happens. Because such suits often come after all the sturm und drang of tha campaign is over, the papers tend not to notice.
It is hard to brief a defemation case (at least in NY) w/o citing some cases involving politicians.
I left out one of Rayn’s questions.
Yes it is possible to use information produced or uncovered in a civil suit in a crimainl case.
Moreover, it is also possible for a civil liti=gant to rely upon a criminal conviction to PROVE the liability phase of a civil case.
For example:
A hit and run is both a crime (criminal) and a tort (civil). If the hit and run driver is convicted of the crime, in the civil case, the plaintiff may not have to offer any proof of liabilty ,but can use the conviction (which was made at a higher standard of proof than is required for civil cases) to establish liabitlity and have the civil tral be solely on the issue of damages.
The reverse is not true, because the civil rpoof of liabilty is at a lower standard of proof than is required for a criminal trail.
This is why you can legaly have inconsistant crimainl and civil verdicts in the OJ Simpson murder/wrongful death cases.
Completely OT, but likely of great interest here.
The Independent UK today published former Defense Minister Ali Allawi’s Blueprint for Peace in Iraq. i consider it brilliant. (This is not the same CIA trained former PM Ayad Allawi.)
Not only is it the first concrete proposal for how to end the madness, but it is obviously timed to take the wind from Bush’s Rovian Surge Sails. At the very least, i believe the community here will be discussing the plan and may even support it. And it brings our troops home soon, if not now.
back to regularly scheduled Fitzmas in January.
LHP — thanks a bunch!!
Good Morning Firedogs,
and Good Morning to ‘Prof. Prop’ !, thanks so much for allowing me to audit your class .
as about the least Plame among us, I need to be reminded about Addington’s testimony – characterized as ‘unfriendly’ by the defense – one more time, why is that so ?
yeah, I’ve spent the last few months waiting for Cheney’s Blue Dress (annotated NYT) and the spectre of the two Cheney spawn; Libby and Addington going at one another . . .
Crazy Horse @ 12
Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/…..125419.ece
John Casper @ 8
Since the pre-trial filings i have read (and except for the new ones out yesterday, I think I have read them all) most of the evidence is still unknown to the public.
The big items are going to be the conflicts between what Libby said and what WH records show. Remember, the WH is required to save just about everything for posterity. There are all sorts of systems to make sure all kinds of things, down to “post its” sometimes, get archived. I’ve heard, but don’t actually know that the email system has a multiple redundency auto archive.(which always made me wonder aboout thatsecond batch of emails “not archived in the usual manner”)
Also, you will notice that the press people, e.g. Cooper, immedialtely email, or write down or tell someone else when they get a tidbit. This is not cause they can’t keep anything to themselves. It is to give themselves some backup. Many of these notes, emails etc. will become exceptions to the Hearsay rule (which I am going to do a seperate post on b/c I believe understanding this rule will be very important to following the trial) andw il be admissble to rpove the truth of themsleves or to support a permissable inference.
Now that shrub can read our mail without a warrant (interesting use of a signing statement, that one, huh?), maybe he’ll use his newfound superpowers to anticipate the prosecution stratety :p
Blub — good point…this is a bigger mess than most of us would think on the face of it.
There are contractors to whom mail handling has been outsourced — including FedEx. Which of these contractors will roll over and play dead for the POTUS? Will your shipments be delayed because mail in the same shipment was detained for review?
It’s not just private mail that’s being interfered with, either; if a shipment is detained, will this obstruct business operations?
This needs a lawsuit and fast.
I have questions about changes in the law that dilutes the power of the Special Prosecutor. Thank God that the special prosecutor we see in Fitz is not the circus act that was Ken Starr. On the other hand, as I’ve stated before, Fitz is also no Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski. I don’t know if the younger crowd means by that, or for that matter, if you understand my meaning, so let me clarify a bit. Special Prosecutor Cox was ostensibly investigating crimes involved with the break-in at the Watergate, but just as any good researcher knows, and as Bob Woodward discovered, investigating that crime led from one thing to another to another and on to another. Although the President had gone on national TV and promised to keep his hands off the Special Prosecutor and not interfere with his investigation, the Saturday Night Massacre occurred when the document production that the Cox demanded was deemed by the White House to be going into things that should not be part of that investigation (although they were additional crimes done by the same people and with some of the same financing.)
I’m wondering why this Special Prosecutor is keeping the investigation so narrow, since we have heard reference made to conspiracy to smear Wilson, etc.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a witness that has been given immunity?
cbl @ 14
I don’t know specifically, but you have to assume that as current counsel to the OVP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Addington
Addington’s motivation and point of view when he testifies will be to protect both Cheney individually and the rest of the )rather large staff of the)OVP. If that meant throwing Scooter under the bu, well.
Just b/c Cheney may have decided to come to Scooter’s aide in recent weeks, that doesn’t mean Addington forsaw that at the time he first testified. He may have stuck it to ole’ Irving pretty good, thinking that by doing so, he was protecting his master.
Rayne and Blub,
Do ya’all get the feeling this reading of mail has already been happening without this signing statement?
I find it hard to believe,with all the crap going on that they haven’t been doing this for awhile now.
My original interest in this case came back in 2003 when I read that Bush had hired a criminal attorney prior to his interview with Fitz. Andrea Mitchell was filling in for matthews, I think, when she made a statement that implicated the president and the whole conspiracy thing. These two items made me beginning dreaming that perhaps the conspiracy could be proven all the way to the top.
Is there any evidence whatsoever that would implicate Bush…other than the fact that he too, was on air force one with “the gang” when they had the paperwork detailing the cia status of plame??
I felt certain that the entire Iraq group had been completely “in” on the plan. If we can “unblock” the obstruction that Libby’s lies provide could it lead all the way to the top?
Morning Prof Prop, all, I brought the coffee. Any bagels?
Wow this is like one of those wonderful small classes in the Great Law Professor’s office. Except there are hundreds (thousands?) of us all cozy here. But IANALS(tudent), and in comment 9 responding to Rayne’s 4 you talk of the CIPA process. Help, help! Children’s Internet Protection Act?
Ann in AZ @ 19
Do we know it’s that narrow? The prosecution of Libby may have narrow foundations, but, as I understand it, that is because (and Fitz has said as much) Libby successfully impeded his investigation into the Plame affair. If there are other, non-Libby avenues, as I understand it, Fitz would (and probably is) pursuing them, right?
Also lhp…thank you so much this is awesome!!
Fitzgerald turned over Jencks material to the defense on December 22. That would apply on to prosecution witnesses, correct? So, for example, the defense will not get the FBI interviews or grand jury testimony of defense witnesses, at least under Jencks, correct?
An Angry Old Broad @ 22
At this point and with this set of jokers in charge, I’d believe anything… I’m just waiting for a signing statement to claim the right to suspend congress, under “exigent circumstances”.. and I’m only half kidding…
What are the odds that the trial will start in Feb? Can team Libby file last-minute motions that will delay things?
I have questions about changes in the law that dilutes the power of the Special Prosecutor. Thank God that the special prosecutor we see in Fitz is not the circus act that was Ken Starr. On the other hand, as I’ve stated before, Fitz is also no Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski. I don’t know if the younger crowd knows what I mean by that, or for that matter, if you understand my meaning, so let me clarify a bit. Special Prosecutor Cox was ostensibly investigating crimes involved with the break-in at the Watergate, but just as any good researcher knows, and as Bob Woodward discovered, investigating that crime led from one thing to another to another and on to another. Although the President had gone on national TV and promised to keep his hands off the Special Prosecutor and not interfere with his investigation, the Saturday Night Massacre occurred when the document production that the Cox demanded was deemed by the White House to be going into things that should not be part of that investigation (although there were additional crimes done by the same people and with some of the same financing.)
I’m wondering why this Special Prosecutor is keeping the investigation so narrow, since we have heard reference made to conspiracy to smear Wilson, etc. He even went so far as to clarify whether he could charge someone with Obstruction or Perjury, which, to my thinking, should have been a given. I feel he’s too reserved and restrained. I’m also wondering if Redd will tell us if her trip to the courtroom makes her wonder if he’s sandbagging. After all the accolades to Fitz, I hate to say it, but I would have thought this investigation should have rendered more than just Libby, unless he’s just an idiot and the others are all geniouses. Why not Armitage, for instance. He is a former spy himself, yet he claims to just have loose lips, not evil intentions. Why should he get off so easily and without having to even hire a lawyer. Stephen Hadley reportedly thought he would be prosecuted, but no. What’s your feel.
FYI, for FirePups not familiar with the term that Jeff used at comment (25):
Jencks Act
Steve @ 27
hehe. well, Libby could always do a convenient Vince Foster episode…
As I am a member of the “Short Attention Span” group, I wonder if you’d be so kind to post snippets of your articles while events unfold. Tis the spirit of the internet!
Thanks so much for what you’re doing. I consider Christy to be the best place to go for info on Fitzmas, and I appreciate your contributions also.
My question is this: How much can Bush/Cheney screw up this process?
Blub @ 17
I would not be surprised to learn one day far in the future that every bit of Team Fitz’s email was being screened. The thing is, I don’t think it would matter. If you are bringing a prosecution, carefully built one brick at a time, based only on the facts as they revealed themselves and not using any tricks or gimmicks, it really doesn’t matter if the other side knows every single thing about your case in advance.
The truth is the truth and the guilty cannot escape it.
The SDNY used (hopefully still does) use a methood of inviting guilty pleas called the “Tendy policy” named after the legendary Bill Tendy (a personal hero of mine, God Rest His Soul). It is all called the “Tendy Open FIle Mehtod”.
Here’s how it works. You invite the defense lawyer (and maybe the defendant) in to your office. You show him everything you’ve got. You may even walk hime through your attorneywork product such as your outline’s for direct and cross examination, your darft opening statement.
You spill your guts. You tell him everything. Onetime a friend of mine did a pre-eneactment of the trial comeplete with some prety dead on impersonations of the some of the witnessnesses (it was hilarious watching this guy flip back and forht between being himself asking the question and the witness anwering it).
Then you ask the defense “do youhonestly believe you can beat that somehow?”
Many offer to plead out that same day. Most offer to plead out within a couple days.
You may not use the “open file” method with every case, but if you were taught by Bill Tendy–and Pat Fitzgerald was indeed taught by Tendy–you try to build every case in such a way that you COULD give open file if you chose to.
Now Fitz can’t ever give open file in these kinds of cases b/c of the classified material problems, but I’m sure that heving the other side know his trial stragey, would not make much of a difference.
If you are familair with his earlier cases, there are no gimmicks.They facts are the facts are the facts. Plain and simple.
Sorry, #28 is the result of my attempt to edit my #19. I really need a tutorial on the edit facility, as I know I’ve seen mentioned before on other threads.
Has a sitting VP ever testified in a criminal trial?
If Cheney is called as a witness and agrees to testify, when there are questions he doesn’t want to answer, will he claim “executive privilege” rather than invoking the 5th amendment?
I would assume he’d be testifying via videotape.
Ann in AZ — I think that Fitzgerald has prosecuted this investigation according to the directions and clarification he was given at the outset.
The problem, as Fitzgerald said in his presser announcing Libby’s indictment, is “sand in his eyes”. Libby’s obstruction prevented further immediate charges against any other potential conspirators; were Libby to remove his obstruction (i.e., stop lying like a rug), Fitzgerald might have had enough other corroborating evidence to charge others with conspiracy, violations of the IIPA, other obstruction charges, and perjury.
Thanks Crazy Horse, I want to read the piece.
My question to LHP (and others): Is this trial really going to be what people here hope; will things come out? We have been so disappointed for so long around the trial (no Cheney, no Rove, etc. etc.). Is this really it? And why.
I was sure these lyrics would be posted to present the gallery view . I see I have again been sadly , wearily wrong , BUT ! despite that have googled the lyrics for my own reference (’s).
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins, just you wait!
You’ll be sorry, but your tears’ll be to late!
You’ll be broke, and I’ll have money;
Will I help you? Don’t be funny!
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins, just you wait!
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins, till you’re sick,
And you scream to fetch a doctor double-quick.
I’ll be off a second later And go straight to the the-ater!
Oh ho ho, ‘enry ‘iggins, just you wait!
Ooooooh ‘enry ‘iggins!
Just you wait until we’re swimmin’ in the sea!
Ooooooh ‘enry ‘iggins!
And you get a cramp a little ways from me!
When you yell you’re going to drown I’ll get dressed
and go to town! Oh ho ho, ‘enry ‘iggins!
Oh ho ho, ‘enry ‘iggins! Just you wait!
One day I’ll be famous! I’ll be proper and prim;
Go to St. James so often I will call it St. Jim!
One evening the king will say:
“Oh, Liza, old thing,
I want all of England your praises to sing.
Next week on the twentieth of May
I proclaim Liza Doolittle Day!
All the people will celebrate the glory of you
And whatever you wish and want I gladly will do.”
“Thanks a lot, King” says I, in a manner well-bred;
But all I want is ‘enry ‘iggins ‘ead!”
“Done,” says the King with a stroke.
“Guard, run and bring in the bloke!”
Then they’ll march you, ‘enry ‘iggins to the wall;
And the King will tell me: “Liza, sound the call.”
As they lift their rifles higher, I’ll shout:
“Ready! Aim! Fire!”
Oh ho ho, ‘enry ‘iggins,
Down you’ll go, ‘enry ‘iggins!
Just you wait!
looseheadprop at 6:04 am
Thank you very much, lucid. Your clients are extremely fortunate to have you representing them.
Really looking forward to your post on the hearsay rule (as long as it doesn’t get in the way too much from you filling that 401(k).
OT, cbl, “Prof Prop,” LMAO.
Ann in AZ @ 19
Christy keeps reminding us that the investigation is not over. There may be more to come. Pat Fitz has a well deserved reputation for being methodical and thorough. He does not have a repuation for being speedy. Now you know why.
HotFlash @ 23
Classified Information Procedures Act.
It is the staute passed in response to the first Greymail attemtps. It lays out how to declassify or substitute for classified materials the defendant needs for his case.
I’d like to know more about this business of Bush thinking he can read people’s mail without a court order. Who first reported it and how did he/she find out? Has he had his people reading mail? Whose?
Thanks!
Jeff @ 25
Jenks matrial also known as 3500 material (for it’s section number in the statute book) is prior statements of prosecution witnesses.Technically you don’t have to turn it over until the witness is called (b/c if you decide at the last minute not to call the witness, you never need turn it over) but in practicce that almost never happens b/cx the defense would then request a recess to stury the information and the trial would drag on forever. The only times you see Jenks material turnedover at the last minute (as the stautue provides) in when the prosecution changes it’s mind and decides to call a witness it had not originally intended to call.
Judges smack around prosecutors who rest on the timeing provisions of the staute.
Can a presidential pardon bring Fitzgerald to a complete and immediate stop?
It’s a new signing statement he just attached to the postal reform act of 2006. The text of it reads as follows:
“The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”
Terry Olson @ 41
Steve @ 27
The trial is starting in January. Jury selection is set to begin Jan 16th with opening statements “immediatley thereafter”. I have heard a rumor (that I owuld NEVER believe, but for the reliability of the source) that jury selction is only expected to take 2-3 days. I am astounded by that.
However, that puts Opening Statements at Jan 22 or even Jan 18.
“….Judges smack around prosecutors….”
ROFLAMO
thanks lhp.
looseheadprop
Sorry. Timing wasn’t my question regarding Jencks. I know for a fact that Fitzgerald has already turned over all Jencks material to the defense (on December 22).
Just to be clear: you’re saying Fitzgerald does not have to turn over Jencks material – grand jury testimony, statements to the FBI – of defense witnesses, right?
So, for instance, if the defense but not the prosecution is calling Stephen Hadley, the prosecution is under no obligation to turn over Hadley’s grand jury testimony. Is that right?
cyn2 @ 31
I do not underestimate their abilty or willingness to corrupt this or any other process. They have already passed evey boundry that I beleived was inviolate.
My general question is this.. I’m not really interested in Libby personally, apart from my fervent desire to see a member of misadmin convicted to a crime. I am, however, interested in what Libby knows and how he may be induced to spill the beans. Does the apparent fact that he has not yet done so (in a devastating manner) indicate that he won’t do so, for a deal, as the trial progresses? Or might he do so if the trial starts going badly for him?
lina @ 34
I don’t know the answer to whether a sitting VP has ever testified. Agnew may have testified in acaase in Maryland. I don’t have a good recollection (setting up my memeory defense here *g*)
I can only assume that a great deal of thought went inot Cheney’s decison to testify and that he and Team Irving have a well choreographed strategy to try to limit the scope of what Fitz can ask of cross exam.
On cross axamination, you can only ask questions on the topics overed on direct exam.
The VP’s testiomy may be the most riveting (to lawyers b/c it will involve VERY NUANCED applications of Criminal Procedure LAw) or really, really boring.
I am quite intrigued by the VP’s decision to testify and by Team Irving’s decision to have him testify. I can see such HUGE downside potential for them. It seems a risky strategy.
whoa.. multiple typos there.. “a member of the misadmin” and “convicted of a crime” in my post above
LHP @ 45 I should have learned from CHS..don’t type before coffee.
Richmond @ 36
If it goes the way the prosecution’s pre-trial fillings eem to indicate, I think you will have plenty of new revelations to chew over for a long time to come.
OT, but nice to see:
Jack Anderson’s Ghost 1, FBI 0
LHP (50) — I’m trying to figure out which of the two applies in having Cheney testify for the defense:
– gross hubris and arrogance;
– Hail Mary pass, aimed at shortcutting the trial and any other dirt that might come out (Cheney “slips”, resigns, Presidential pardon in December 2007, etc.)
Looseheadprop:
So, assuming that Rove saved himself by offering up Libby immediately and promising Fitz Cheney’s scalp, what are Cheney’s options to save himself? The only scalp with a higher value than Cheney’s belongs to Bush — and I just can’t see Cheney selling out Bush; the retaliation factor would be tremendous.
Poobah @ 43
It can bring this trial to a complete and immediate stop, but by removing Scooter’s right to invoke the 5th ammendment, it might do Fitz (and Congress too) a big favor.
Scooter would have to spill his guts or face new, and–if possible– even easier to prove, obstruction of justice charges. Or contempt of congress charges.
It’s all good. Fitz has hog tied them 10 different ways to christmas. It’s like a perfect chessboard.
hold it…with Armitage in the mix, can we still, reasonably, assume Rove was involved?
Ok, I have a different legal question…
There seem to be a lot of people shuffling around.
Rummy’s gone.
Negroponte moving to State.
To what extent do people leaving, and people shuffling between departments insulate them from testifying in Congressional investigations?
Blub — they’re still weighing out who comprised the “1×2×6″ equation over at The Next Hurrah, with some of the folks (Swopa, for instance) weighing in on Fleischer/Bartlett as the “2″, and some weighing in on Rove/Libby as the “2″ (think this is Emptywheel’s bet).
So Rove is still in the mix. Called to testify 5 times in front of the Grand Jury, Rove can hardly be out of it.
Jeff @ 47
Under Jenks no, but exculpatory material, including witness inteviews and statements to investegators must be turned over at “brady material (Brady v. Maryland), even if it is defense witnesses or witnesses not on anybody’s witness list.
Brady material can also be docuemtns or things. Any exculaptory evidence
Blub @ 49
Who ca look into another man’s head and know what he is thinking? All indications to date, is that Libby is determined to be a firewall.
If specifics in Bush’s Executive Order 13292, issued in March 2003, give legal permission for access to classified information without accountability, will the judge recognize that if the legality of all of Bush’s EOs are in question?
Obviously, Jane, Christy, emptywheel, lhp, and others think so.
On that note, I would encourage anyone who has not already looked closely at their monthly budget, to consider a $*.07 donation to FDL to help them meet their goal of $12,000. That will cover travel and lodging expenses for FDL to use the one press pass that Huffington Post obtained. I think Jane, Christy, emptywheel, lhp, and others are understandably concerned that the media will not cover this accurately, that can affect the perception of this event for years to come. Obtaining an FDL perspective, imho, will really put healthy pressure on the NYT’s, the WaPo, and everyone else to cover this with the accuracy it deserves. Let’s not forget, NYT’s, WaPo, and all the large media owners have dogs in this race. None of them is neutral. Most or all of them will want to slant coverage to hide their own duplicity.
If you use donate, whatever you donate, add seven cents to the donation. That’s how Jane and Christy know it’s for the $12,000 travel and lodging budget. IIRC, FDL is requesting you use Pay Pal. For Christy’s directions, here’s her link
Guess Who is Going to DC
Question:
1)If during the years of investigation that
this case involves, Fitzy comes across “other
crimes” does he have a legal or moral responsibility to refer these cases to the
DOJ?
Jack
looseheadprop @
32
It strikes me that the Tendy Open File Method would be particularly effective with folks who are obsessed with secrecy. “Let’s see what’s behind door number one . . . and door number two . . . and oh my goodness, look at what’s behind door number three . . .”
Team Irving would strike me as prime candidates for such an approach, including not only Fitz’s files and notes but the case history to date. “Let’s review, shall we? Let’s look at the strategies you’ve tried . . . oh wait, Judge Walton smacked most of those down, didn’t he? Let’s look at your expert witness on memory. You remember her testimony, don’t you. I especially liked the part where I asked her a few little questions about her own research. Pity she won’t be much help . . .”
Ouch. That Tendy Open File Method’s gotta hurt.
Rayne @ 55
You and me both, darlin’.
I believe, and have posted to the effect, that at least part of it, is the “bright shiny objects” defense. That they want to divert the jury’s attention from the somewhat plain vanilla fatcs of Libby lied and under circumstances that make it rahter pathetically obvious that he lied, on purpose.
yes, yes – I am so not a lawyer, but there have been several instances where my gut has just screamed that Ted Wells sees this as simply another white collar crime he has so successfully defended in the past – as if Cutler didn’t know they had Sammy the Bull in the wings . . .
Phoenix Woman @ 56
Who says Rove saved himself? Onlt Rove’s lawyer says that. Since when do I believe spin coming from Rove’s lawyer?
looseheadprop @ 10
Wow! Who can sue? Only the candidate, or can citizens too? Why did no one sue the Swift Boaters, or was Kerry the only one that could do that? If citizens could sue, then it seems this could be an avenue to reduce election smears.
Pat_AlexVA @ 59
I think it has everything to do with it. Negraponte took a freakin” DEMOTION!!!!
Harriet Myers just quit!!!
Many alrm bells going off inside the loosehead’s mind
looseheadprop @ 57
Could he not just be pardoned again, or be given a sweeping pardon and claim double jeopardy?
Thanks, looseheadprop. I also had the brilliant thought, which I should have done to begin with, to look back at the actual statute, and it’s pretty categorical.
somebody somewhere said if Libby gets pardoned, then he can’t take the 5th if called to testify before Congress.
the truth will out.
rumi @ 63
If you maen Judge Walton? I think he will avoid digressions of that sort and confine himself to the legal issues strictly necessary for determining only that crimes charged.
Whether or not the NIE was properly declassified in NOT an element of Liby’s perjury or obstruction crimes.
See, how the “bright shiny object” defense works? It is very insideous. You start glancing at the the bright shiny thongs and the next thing you know, you ar eoff chasing them and haev forgetten what the case is actuallyabout.
It’s a clever trick
Bush has settled on a new policy:
PURGE AND SURGE.
Purge the military of all dissent, surge the number of US troops killed.
Mission accomplished.
-GSD
Hi Fellow lakedwellers. I received this email from a friend. Check out this site it is frightening. log on to the link and ask them to delete your name. You just know this site is run by the ReTHUGS……
———————————————–
Here is something that should scare you! Heads up.
Beginning (JULY ‘06) a new database is available to the
general public free of charge that displays your personal information
(names, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates). (Soc. Sec. is available for
a price, as are other items of information.) The database is found at http://www.zabasearch.com
Type in your name and check … you’ll be SHOCKED!
Check to see if your name and information is in their database. If so and you want it removed, send them an e-mail at info@zabasearch.com to request it be removed. I do not know how our names are appearing there, but I checked my own and a few other random family members and they are all in this database!
After opting out by email, check back after a few days to make certain your
information has been removed. If it has not been removed then file a
complaint with your State’s Attorney General.
Bay State Librul @ 65
If the crimes in question, fall within his own mandate, he can indict them himself. If he trips over, let’s say a drug ring or sports gambling ring, by accident, he could refer those cases to any appropriate prsoecutor
Sorry if I left the impression that I think Fitz is a boob. Actually, I don’t think it’s all his fault that only Libby got charged in this case. Other Special Prosecutors seem only to have the one case to deal with, their desks seemingly were cleared of all other cases, but this Special Prosecutor is all over the place, so I think one means to obstructing or diverting his full attention, is to pile more on him than he should reasonably be expected to handle. How can he be expected to pursue a coverup, while at the same time he’s trying to fight crime and corruption in Illinois or NY or anywhere else around the world where a law superhero is needed. Don’t put it past this administration to overtax him until they break him. They’ve done it to Generals, why not to Justice Dept. Staff. that insist on following the rules and won’t play their game or tell them what they want to hear. Still, I wish I felt the coverup wasn’t quite so successful.
Jack-Bay State (65) — See Walter Pincus article in WaPo in regards to other crimes:
He doesn’t actually have to turn them over to DoJ, he can prosecute the crimes himself.
The original letter of authorization instructed Fitzgerald to do so.
See also the ever-illustrious emptywheel on the authorization to Fitzgerald.
edit: I should say if Fitz finds crimes committed within the context of Comey’s authorization; looseheadprop is right. But let’s say one of the principals in this investigation hired somebody to do something illegal, like harassing someone, or stealing information from someone, in relation to covering up a crime, that would be within the realm of Fitz’ authorization.
Hello LHP
I guess my question is the same one I’va had all along — will Fitz continue or is this the end of the prosecution road for this issue. To stop with Libby would be unlike Fitz, but right now it looks like he is invested in this, but nothing further.
Ideas?
PS — So happy to see you posting.
GSD @ 76
One reporter on CNN this AM asked their military ‘expert’ about the change in leadership: “Would you say that this move was ‘about time’ or ‘in the nick of time’?”
That was enough to get me out of bed.
The same military ‘expert’ then said something about ’secretarian violence’
Pectopah @ 70
In order to sue for defanmation (mamaoray aid for you “slander is spoken, libel’s in letters a/k/a written), you maust have “standing”
That means you must have been the one who’s reputation was damaged.
Kerry lost my vote forever when he failed to timely and adequately respond to the swiftboat attacks. It was amistake not only for him personally, but opened the door to huge waves of subsequent slime attacks.
Lou Costello @
15
I’m a Plamemaniac, but thanks for this link.
Pectopah @ 72
Double jeapardy attaches when the jury is sworn in. Hasn’t even hapened in this case yet.
It would be hard to think of how a pardon could be worded that would allow him to engage in future crimes.
Rayne @ 80
Many thanks Rayne…
Good stuff….
Wouldn’t you like to have the publishing
rights to Fitz’s potential book?
Jack
immanentize at 7:14 am
Hey old friend, great to be on an FDL thread with you. Hope everything is well with you and the family.
Raw Story: House Dems prep strong Iraq statement… Working to acquire…
looseheadprop @ 71
Alarm bells here too. When the White House counsel leaves right before the trial starts of a (former) major White House staffer, something screwy’s going on. All these White House folks are potentially headed up to the courthouse, and the President’s lawyer decides it’s time to go? Lots of possibilities, ranging from major personal issues with no bearing on this case all the way over to her being caught in the middle of this whole mess over her legal advice and activities. Miers holds John Dean’s old job, and John can tell us all about the president’s counselor can get caught in a mess like this.
Negroponte’s shift is particularly curious. One the one hand, it seems like a demotion, but being #2 at State is nothing to sneeze at. Depending upon how his job description is written, it could be quite a powerful move on his part. Gotta watch this one more . . .
Jack-Bay State — I did the next best thing by chipping in seed money for emptywheel’s Anatomy of Deceit.
Heh.
looseheadprop @ 75
What if the EO has/had specific language that allowed normally unauthorized people to have access and that change has a relationship to ‘who knew what, when’? What if the EO has specific language that allowed the obscuring of normal information classification ID protocols for a period of time, in advance, that appears to have been a deliberate method to allow the leak to happen without legal consequences?
Ann in AZ @
33
This might help a bit. I saved it from way back when they revved up some of these fawncy tools.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..en-thread/
Question 2
Do you think that Rovian “dirty tricks” will
continue during the trial…. i.e. trying
to have a juror talk so there is a mis-trial, etc? Will the jurors be sequested?
Jack
Hello John,
Things are very very hectic, but relatively happy. Job-for-life procedures (aka tenure) are icky ones.
Got a nice brief off, recently though. Are you well?
I don’t think this is over.. the only thing regrettable from apolitical perspective is that prosecutors take their own time do to what they need to do, instead of responding solely to political timetables (which is a good thing).
I think the fact Libby is charged with criminally obstructing the investigation lends strength only to the prosecution of Libby for the alleged obstruction… and any good prosecutor is going to make the argument that Libby’s obstruction had real consequences in slowing down the overall investigation into Plamegate. As I understand it this does not necessarily mean that the obstruction has truely (and permanently) foreclosed over all other potential investigative avenues. Presumably these other avenues remain open, and are being pursued away from the political spotlight.. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe one of the attorneys here can give their two cents..
Ann in AZ @ 81
Ann in AZ @ 79
Certainly, trying to overtax him until he breaks or makes a mistake has been a key feature of the Admin’s strategy–and Team Irving’s too, some of their motions were such obvious “make work”.
He has been pretty stoic. Obviously, everyone on Team Fitz has an iron physical ocnsittuioton or else the best regimine of vitamins and supplements! *g*
Morning folks!
Now, back to read…. wonderful tutorial here.
Thanks lhp and everyone.
LHP – this is great, thanks!
I’m curious about Cheney’s ability to invoke the 5th for himself for his responses. To cherry pick the questions he would answer would certainly be frustrating. For that matter, any of the witnesses opting for the 5th is disheartening.
immanentize @ 81
Imm! Great to see you!
I don’t know whether or not this trial is the end of the line. Christy has sources who have told her the investigation remains open (at least that was the case the last time she mentioned it), so who knows what the future brings?
I would be surprised if here is a lot of investigatory activity going on as we speak b/c Team Fitz really is severely understaffed for what it is trying to do, so I assume that EVERYBODY on Team Fitz is working flat out on the current trial (while trying to keep the rest of their full time case loads from crashing)
Job-for-life procedures
Thanks for the update, that’s the one I was most interested in. I hope it works out, one way or another.
My situation is decent, I won’t go beyond that, but thanks for asking.
mainsailset @ 100
One cannot pick and choose which questions to answer once the fifth is invoked. If an answer is made to any substantive question beyond your name, you have waived the right to rely on the fifth.
Poobah @
43
or could complete stonewalling by Jr or cheney do likewise?
Peterr @ 89
Or is Condi going to quit and Negraponte become Secy of State?
Re: alarm bells, staffing changes across Bush administration
1) Negroponte — read Larry Johnson’s post yesterday, along with commentary on Wesley Clark’s concerns. There is something BIG going on, with regards to Iran, and nobody wanted Zelikow’s/Zoellig’s job as Deputy SecState. So Negroponte was told to get over there in a hurry. The question I have is whether he’s done this at Dubya’s and Cheney’s request, or if this is a backdoor manuever by Poppy/Baker since Negroponte was one of their boys. Looks to many like a demotion, but it’s really not; he’s now the SecState, with Condi a mere figurehead (as ineffectual as she is).
2) Miers — wonder if she expects to be deposed soon, and doesn’t want to be on staff when it happens? Or has she been asked too many questions in regards to Iran and doesn’t want to be culpable? Might even be a protest move…
Lott: I May Oppose Troop Escalation
rumi @ 91
NO ONE IS CHARGED WITH A LEK IN THIS CASE
THIS case is about lying to the FBI, lying to the GJ, and obstruction of justice.
That’s all
Bay State Librul @ 93
I put NOTHING past this admin. Let your imagination run wild.
Immanentize,
Happy New Year !
knew you were busy but so good to see you checking in – sending you wishes the new year brings you and yours the very best
gotta go, thanks again Prof. Prop
have an FDL day all
p.s. someone ask Jane why she hasn’t changed the masthead to Workers Paradise – what will I tell the kidz at redstate ?*g*
Lieberman and McCain have a nice luncheon with Fred Kagan to discuss escalation.
It takes place in DC this morning. Get your tickets now. Registration starts at 10:45, so it isn’t too late.
http://www.aei.org/events/even…..detail.asp
h/t to Attaturk.
Blub @ 95
You seem to have it down pat.
karnak12 @ 86
Remember that Plamegate began because Joe Wilson was courageous enough to go public against one of the great lies leading to the illegal preemptive invasion of Iraq. Then four years of hell. And though we all want the criminals to pay the price, we also want the insanity to end.
The Ali Allawi Blueprint for Peace is significant, concrete, and already gaining support here in Europe. If it further gains support in the progressive blogosphere in the US, it may be enough to build a foundation for an alternative strategy for the Dems. and that might be enough to stop the purge and surge and bring the troops home.
Which is the reason the esteemed Ambassador did what he did.
We now return you to the professor’s Plamegate primer.
Peterr @ 89
is it possible negroponte’s move was intended to keepp condi in line? she’s been lookin’ awful poutty lately.
looseheadprop @ 85
Given how ‘grateful’ the country was this past week regarding Ford’s pardon of Nixon, I can see Bush taking a cue, and deciding to end the “long national nightmare” known as Plamegate. His first pardon would be a signal of the more pardons to come to keep Libby and others quiet. The NYT and WaPo would likely opine that the pardon is a good thing for the nation, so we can move forward.
How can Fitz beat a stacked deck?
Just to follow up. It appears that registration for the AEI event is now closed. I suppose they would prefer to keep the audience limited to hand selected supporters.
looseheadprop @ 99
Given how Fitz keeps his public focus on the four corners of his indictments – no pointing to bright shiny objects for Fitz! – and lets his filings and arguments in court do the talking for him, I don’t know that I’d agree with the “nothing further” part of imm’s comment. Until he thinks he can prove something to a judge and jury, he’s not going to say anything in public. In other words, the investigation will be over when Fitz says it’s over (not when Rove’s lawyer or Cheney’s lawyer or anyone else’s lawyer says it’s over), and not a minute sooner.
Hehe.. well, John Poindexter spoke at Duke recently and hinted that Total Info Awareness may not be dead. Perhaps shrub plans to bring him back into negroponte’s vacancy.. for a grand reunion! We’ll all have chips in our heads by the end of the year :)
looseheadprop @ 105
looseheadprop @ 105
I understand that. Does your reply mean that you think this trial won’t lead elsewhere? If that’s the case, this is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money for nearly no accountability. If the perjury/obstruction is part of a pursuit to establish an understanding of a broader conspiracy then it might be worth the expense.
“Or is Condi going to quit and Negraponte become Secy of State?”
That was definitely, what I was thinking. Fact free analysis, but it seems like a shot across her bows. If she wants to keep her job, she better be more neocon more of the time. My guess is DeadEye and the Shrub are worried she might be unduly influenced by the Baker Hamilton report. IMHO DeadEye and Shrub aren’t worried about the Democrats, it’s Jimmy Baker whispering to Republicans that’s got them sweating.
mainsailset @ 98
Remember, the 5th ammendment protect a witness from having to answer questions where the witness has good faith beif that the answer will tend to incriminate himself.
To invoke the 5th=Cheney admitting he believes he has committede some crime.
Do you really think a guy like Cheney would ever believe that about himself? This is a guy who believes that no matter what crazy thing he does, it is somehow justified.
I can’t picture it. Maybe I lack imagination
Told ya Lott’s revenge isn’t over… he’s just gettin’ started…
twolf1 @ 107
LHP 77 — have to tell you I am still LMAO at your completely innocent but funnier than hell typo…
“bright shiny thongs”
Yeah. I wouldn’t put it past these criminals to throw a few of those in there to redirect attention from their criminality. Heh.
Adie @ 102
Isn’t that what they have been doing todate?
Hasn’t stopped it so far. Fitz has not put Bush or Cheney on the prosecution’s witness list. Evidently, he doesn’t need anything they’ve got
Bullseye.
“Denial” is not a river in Egypt.
lhp – may I say that much of the legal discussion is over my head, but I feel honored to have a chance to get your commentary and insight regarding Plame and other huge topics – and thoroughly enjoy the back and forth between you and other members of the legal profession.
Thanks for taking the time to educate us! Whenever there is a Plame discussion among family and friends, I tend to be the best informed – due solely to the info I get from FDL.
Did Fitz decide not to indict Rove, or was it the Grand Jury.
dab from CT, great unpaid warrior for Ned Lamont.
PSA – tornado warnings Atlanta area
Blub @
122
as much as I may object to Lott, he can oppose the shrub admin well – he’s a man who can hold a grudge…
twolf1 at 7:29 am
Thanks, great link.
Pectopah @ 112
I don’t think the papers would get on board the way yuou are saying. A criminal conviction of Scooter would not be the kind to tectonic thing that a criminal conviction of Nixon would have been,
Plus, more cynically, they are all geared up to sell a lot of papers off this trial.They still miss Monica. and OJ, and william Kennedy Smith. They love this kind of stuff.rumi @ 116
No it does not mean that I don’t think the trial could lead lesewhere. AS I said upthrread, I think there will be lots of new revelations that come out through the trial. And I believe the investiagtion remains open.
[Mod Note; ziggurat alert]
John Casper @ 123
ah- a useful weakness, for the sake of the goodguys in this chess game….
Oh yea.. personally, I’m counting on that Dixiecrat to cast the deciding vote in the Senate in favor of shrub’s removal from office (after having personally delivered enough rethugs to bring us to 2/3rds…). just wait…
OldCoastie @ 130
LHP 121 — I’ll bet you are picturing Cheney pulling a Colonel Jessup under oath.
I know I am. Pleading the 5th, my eye.
Jack-Bay State — here, finally found what I was looking for, Comey’s original authorization to Fitzgerald, ca. 30-DEC-2003. It extends all the plenary powers of the AG to Fitzgerald; in other words, Fitz has all the powers that Abu Gonzalez has.
My interpretation (open to critique, naturally): even Abu Gonzalez cannot fire Fitzgerald.
rumi @ 116
Oh, and a nother thing, it is not “a tremondos waste of texpayer money” it has cost less than $1 miil in out of pocket costs tot he tax payer b/c non of Team Fitz is actually being paid extra for their work on this case in addition to their full time duties in their “day” jobs.
Unlike Ken Starr’s $30 million investigation in to a private extramartital affair, this case does involve accoutnabilty, perjury is certainly an accountability crime, one of the most fundamental to our court system, and it has been done with incredible frugality.
John Casper @ 118
I can’t see this as a move to take Condi’s job. If that was the case, Negroponte’d go straight from his intelligence post to #1 at State. He was just confirmed as the head of national intelligence, and will be going through another confirmation hearing for the #2 job at State. To plan on this as a prelude to yet another hearing in a move to take Condi’s job is a bit much.
The biggest part of the Dep Sec of State’s job description is to handle whatever jobs are put in your lap. The line at the bottom of most deputy-level position descriptions in the Executive Branch is something like “and other such duties as may be assigned” and that’s got to be what’s driving this move. Given that the Iraq situation is going from worse to worser to worst, and that Bush is about to make a major Decision and Speech on Iraq, I’m guessing that the move is tied to that mess.
Rayne @ 123
that was a typo?
Rayne @ 120
I am beet red—and LMFAO!
I think we should change the anme to Bright shiny thongs, permanently. It works on so many more levels this way.(still laughing)
There’s movie “John Tucke must die” where this influential jock eventually gets an entioe HS to wear thongs (they guys–even the janators) it’s not the plot of the movie, but just an ironic aside in it.
I see possibilites here. I do, I do.
Even with a pardon, could Libby not still invoke the 5th to Congress, as the pardon would be regarding an Obstruction of Justice conviction, and not leaking classified material. Plus, if he is on appeal, could he not also refuse to testify.
Pectopah @ 124
Other than spin from Goldbars Luskin, who ever said anyone ever decided not to indict Rover? How do we know thatthere is not a sealed indictment ? I dn’t now that.
OT – Sen. Tim Johnson to lead spending subcommittee
DAb form Con
Thank you for the undeserved compliment.
You say the discussion is over your head.Is there anything you would explained?
OT: Charles Krauthammer just stopped drinking the Kool Aid: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01347.html
Peterr @ 135
if i may be permitted layperson’s idiotic question: if cheney = jr’s puppeteer, what’s to keep negraponte from being condi’s?
Pectopah @ 140
Depnds on what the pardon says. But that is a nice pickup.
ANybody know haow to close the bold tag I seem to have left open?
[Mod Note; it’s my pleasure]
For anyone who don’t understand the “gold bars” reference, it’s about Rove’s attorney.
DC Love Match Unka Karl and gold bars (Luskin)
Peterr
I was thinking that maybe Condi was fixin’ to resign so they slid Negeponte in the be waiting in the wings.
I think Meyer’s resigning is significant, but don’t have a full fledged theory yet.
looseheadprop @ 133
Rep Waxman has thought it is important enough to consider. I would hope that Fitzgerald would too.
Peterr (135) — look at it from this angle: if Cheney were to leave office, um, to spend more time with his family, maybe coincidentally after testifying on behalf of Libby’s defense, who would Bush elevate to VP?
I suspect Condi, leaving Negroponte as SecState.
John Casper @ 128
LOL – thanks.
I’m still chuckling at the bit I read here the other day suggesting that “Nobody wants American troops home more than I do” Lieberman call up CT voters – shout “sucker” and then hang up.
What a mess!
It’s closed for me after your comment 139.
In HTML, a backslash “/” in the tag closes it.
looseheadprop @ 143
LHP – thanks for asking.
No, I get the general gist – just get a bit lost during discussions about precedence and legal specifics, etc.
Peterr @ 137
Yep. Don’t forget that Condi is a “cold war” expert (having specialized in Soviet Studies in academia), and she doesn’t know that much about the Middle East, as has been evident in her lackluster performance.
Negroponte, on the other hand, is a career foreign service officer considered a Middle East expert. So yes, he’s being brought in to bolster Bush’s next move in Iraq and possibly Iran.
Mod: Bold be gone!
LHP (139) — Heh. Too funny. Although even typing out a comment that includes the words, “Cheney, Libby, bright shiny thongs” in the same paragraph is enough to make one heave…but I suppose if your head’s in a toilet, you can’t listen to testimony too carefully.
rumi (149) — Waxman’s challenge will be concentrating his investigative firepower on that which will be most fruitful; he’s said that he will have to pick and choose. While I do think that a Congressional hearing has been warranted, I also think that a hearing into the violation of IIPA may take a backseat to a larger investigation into the run-up of the Iraq War, since it looks like Bush is already running up to an Iran War.
I’m still reading, but I thought the Anthrax Scare allowed the government to legally read mail?
Rumi,
I agree that there shuld be a Congressional investigation AFTER all the criminal investigations are domplete. We don’t know that to be the case the case yet.
In Iran Contra, Congress jumped the gun and started it’s own investigations before the criminal investiagtions were complete.Like utter fools they immunized witnesses that would have/could have wound up as crimainal defendants. This gutted Larry Wlah’s investiagtion.
Waxmann is right about the need for aditional Congressional investiation, however, it should not begin until they are positive Fitz is done.
LHP:
Regarding VP’s testifying, USA Today had an article referencing that point on 12/19. It said, in part:
“Cheney’s testimony would be historic. Sitting presidents, including Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, have testified in criminal cases but presidential historians, such as New York University’s Paul Light, said they knew of no vice president who has done so…. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 and pleaded no contest to criminal charges of tax evasion and money laundering. But Agnew never testified, said presidential historian Richard Shenkman, editor of George Mason University’s History News Network.”
Also, wasn’t Mr. Tendy gone by the time Fitzgerald started with the SDNY? Do you mean the everpresent Tendy-spirit taught him?
ccmask — believe the question is about the immediacy of a threat. If there is an immediate threat, the Postmaster already has authority to open mail. The impetus behind Dubya’s signing statement is about foreign intel, indicating a non-immediate threat.
law question not related to fitzmas;
regarding the supreme courts decision to intervene in the Florida election process during gore
1) were just “liberal” lawyers opposed to their interpretation or was that the consensus among most lawyers…what percentage agreed what percentage disagreed with their decision
2) I noted at the time that the courts decision was based on the amount of time remaining to decide the presidency and didn’t have anything to do with the merits of any argument
however, the amount of time that was missing was specifically due to the court themselves telling the state to stop the count
was this dichotomy discussed in the legal community?
LHP – I would often email Christy asking (i.e. imploring) her to write about the reality of criminal trials versus their portrayal in the press or in fictional movies/TV shows.
Basically, that the press puts way too much stock on, and gives way too much credence to, the motions and objections made by the defense in criminal trials, when there is basically no chance in hell that the judge is going to rule against the gov’t or really do anything that might damage the gov’t’s case. Yet the press is agog whenever the defense does anything that the judge has to consider – giving great importance to what are the same motions and/or objections that any and every defense attorney makes in any and every criminal trial (at least at the federal level), and loses 99.9% of the time.
There is nothing to nearly all of it, yet if you listen to or read press/TV reaction, the actual possibility that the judge might in any meaningful way rule against in favor of the defense is given the same odds that the judge will rule for the gov’t. This 50-50, the trial is on a precipice reaction is bs, and it shouldn’t be countenanced here. Yet, that is exactly the reaction during the pre-trial phase with every motion filed by Libby’s team from the CM and also in the comments in the threads here – how will Judge Walton rule? Oh no, Fitz is trouble! Hardly.
Please give the real world scoop on this shit.
LHP – just want to thank you for your generosity with your time and knowledge on this thread.
John Casper @
125
We’re all waiting for the “You can’t handle the truth” moment.
Does the 12k buy a nice camera video phone?
What would be nice – but probably too long for a blog posting – is a listing of the counts, the supporting evidence, and the criteria necessary for conviction.
But perhaps that is already in the original indictment. It would be nice to have a scorecard as the trial progresses.
No, Unless my memory is complete swisscheese this AM, Tendy was still there when Fitz started.
Certainly the Tendy Policy was still in effect then,because the story I told about the guy who acted out his case, was in the same General Crimes class as Fitz.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 162
I am honored to be in the presense of the infamous EPU. Good to see you here
perris @ 161
I disagreed with that decision on tha law and the facts. I don’t think it is because of any liberal bias, but the thing about bias is often you don’t see it in yourself.
I think it is significant that the SC said the decision was to have zero value a precedent–it implies to me that they thought it was crap.
Rayne @ 156
Bright Shiny Thong? Something new from Cafe Press?
looseheadprop @ 155
I kind of get the impression that if that’s the case, waiting until a nearly insignificant trial (in the scope of all concerned) is finished, it will be too late.
In other words, it feels like the focus on Libby’s perjury in exclusion of everything else, is the bright shiny object.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 162
I don’t think Iwill live loong enough to do all of that. Hopefully when the Godeeses And Emptywheel are live blogging the trial, they will set ti straight at leaast as to this one trial.
JC – I didn’t realize I was infamous. But I’ll take it, though I prefer omniscient.
Pat_AlexVA @ 164
No cellphones or comeras allowed inside federal courthouse. Sorry
OT – Raw Story: FLASH: New outing blog begins taking on priests alleged of abuse, names two GOP congressmen…. Developing….
tryggth @ 165
We don’t actually know what the supporting evidence is yet. We have some scraps and lots of speculation, but don’t actually know yet. that’s why we need so very much popcorn for the trial
LHP – Is there an email address that we can contact you at? I do like to implore off line, plus I can send you my bona fides on this type of thing.
An Angry Old Broad @ 22
Of course it has. And have you noticed that this is the second year in a row that we got a little Christmas present of the media spilling the beans about yet another egregious BushCo violation of our civil liberties? The difference is that this time, we have a Congress that might do something about it.
LHP:
Tendy died in 1986. Fitzgerald was still at Christy & Viener then. But your mind is working fine. I just remember it because I was at the funeral…otherwise, decades just BLUR for me at this point (I’m 49 and happy to remember my own birth date!).
looseheadprop @
148
Rayne @
150
From the standpoint of every administration, Congressional confirmation hearings are at best a necessary evil. You need them to get your people in place, but you don’t want any more of them than you absolutely must have. If Condi’s going to resign (voluntarily or otherwise), there’s no need for Negroponte to have been her deputy to get him into that job. Ditto for Cheney.
Miers, on the other hand, has really got me thinking. The page A1 story on her in the Washington Post today starts like this:
The article goes on to detail all the various congressional investigations (Katrina, contracting in Iraq, etc.) but there’s absolutely NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of Irving’s pending trial.
LHP, has Harriet shown up in the filings anywhere, either by Irving or Fitz? Has she given a deposition or testimony? Is she on a witness list?
Rumi,How in heaven’s name can you describe the criminal trial of one of the most de facto powerful men in BushCo, complete with historiac testimony from a sitting VP as “nerely insignificant”????
You insignificant like Katrina was a sunshower?
rumi @ 170
I’m with you.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 176
EPU you don’t need to establish you bona fides to me, I am one of you biggest fans. I just think the task you have set,is HUGE.
OT–Full analysis in The Economist (posted today) of what Bush will announce next week (possibly Wednesday according to US MSM):
Adie @ 94
Thanks, Adie, I sure hope it will help, but the problem is that, no matter how soon after I publish, or how large or small the edit, when I hit the edit button, nothing happens. My comment does not go into the Leave a Reply box for me to edit. I don’t know why. Maybe I need to highlight what I expect to edit. I’ll try it on this post, just to see if it works and so I know if I’ve learned how. Thanks again for the help.
Thanks LHP – and others – this is a fabulous post! Hope you will do lots more too.
LHP – Great chat this AM, and you got Christy’s vacation off to a good start. One last question, before I have to go: are those the prop-pups in the photo up top?
Rosie @ 178
It’s funny, I remeber someone else from that General Crimes class dating Tendy’s Daughter the summer she came to intern, for some reason, I thought Tendy was still around.
Maybe b/c said young man was sweating bullets at the thought of making a pass at the great man’s baby girl.
That may be the source of my timeline confusion.
I may have misrembered it thinking he was afraid of the actual Tendy himself.
Peterr @ 179
I think she was interviewed. Don’t know/ can’t recall if she is on any witness lists. WOuld have to research that.
Peterr @ 186
No, prop pups are labs
looseheadprop @ 177
Watergate…Iran/Contra… these are all the same players that eluded accountability before.
…look at Rove’s possible involvement in the ruination of so many lives and he’s allowed to testify multiple times – correcting previous lies – to escape any charges at all.
Ann in AZ:
Editing is great, when it works. IE seems to have lots of problems with it, however. Firefox works for me.
Here’s what’s supposed to happen.
(1) Hit “edit this comment” within five minutes of making the original comment, and the original comment appears in the “leave a reply” box.
(2) Make your changes.
(3) Preview the changes. Remember, Preview is your friend, and ignoring it is what got you into this editing business in the first place.
(4) Once you’re satisfied, hit “save” and the edited comment goes back up into the comments area.
Like I said, that’s what’s supposed to happen, and with the exception of IE, it generally does. Good luck!
looseheadprop @ 171
dam – but you didn’ mention laptops.. eh?
OK gotta go do the day job. there should be a new post up by now.
LHP – I know you are up to the task, as I know Christy is up to the task – remember, I’m omniscient.
Blub @ 17
he cannot no matter what his signing statement,
he only claims he can
THANKYOU! lhp ;->
looseheadprop @ 189
That’s what I thought, but my mind is fogged by seeing lots of other puppies during holiday visits in the midwest, and The Kid’s requests to take them home! Hope your are doing well.
new thread
Well, I’ll try this again. If I hit the Quote This Comment button, the quote immediately goes into the Leave a Reply box and I’m ready to start composing my own comment. But if I hit the edit this comment button, it takes me to a blank Leave a Reply box. I’ve tried copying the message to be edit into the box, I’ve tried editing right there in the published info, I’ve tried highlighting words or phrases to be edited, thinking they would appear in the box if only I highlight them. All to no avail. If anyone knows what I’m doing wrong, please help because I’ve taken to publishing before I preview because when I don’t I get EPU’d because I don’t read or type fast enough.
Richmond @ 178
I hate to be this way because I’ve been a Fitzfan from the very beginning. I appreciate his team’s hard work but it seems like this trial is way too little, way too late. By the time it’s over, we’ll likely be knee deep in bodies from war with Iran that we’ve been lied into the exact same way.
Great job, LHP!! See you after the day job!
LHP, there’s lot’s of good stuff in here. As this thread comes to a close, I predict this thread will most be remembered for the introduction of…
Cheney’s Bright Shiny Thongs
It’s even better when you read it in original reference.
“You start glancing at the the bright shiny thongs and the next thing you know, you ar eoff chasing them and haev forgetten what the case is actuallyabout.”
OldCoastie @ 130
In short, a useful idiot…useful to us, that is. I think Bush may have to take a rain check on that mint julep.
Pat_AlexVA — that might yet become a topic of inspiration to our beloved darkblack…
One can only hope.
Pat_AlexVA @
202
It’s not about unitary executive…manipulation of intel to go to war…Niger forgeries…outing a covert agent….Brewster’s WMD surveillance…
It’s about the fact that this one man lied to the FBI and a grand jury and not the conspiracy it protected.
Ann in AZ @ 199
I have the same exact problem and need enlightenment as well.
lhp, please excuse if I’m repeating another request, as I don’t have time to read all comments till… much later today.
My question: I don’t really understand the federal court system, nor how the circuits affect what trials get handed to which judges. Are judges assigned by lottery? Or are certain judges handed specific types of cases? Or a mix?
Shorter: how did Walton get this trial? What court does he work within? If it is appealed, where does it go?
Also: can prosecutors ever ‘refuse’ judges, the way they can ‘refuse’ jurors?
Thx much. Love your explanations!
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 207
There are 9 judicial circuits, one for each Justice of the Supreme Court Plus an extra for DC. The Justice assigned to the Second Circuit (which is comprised of New York, Conn, and Vt.) is Justice Ginsberg. Within each circuit are, obviously, states. Some states Like vermont have such a small population that there is only one district court for the whole state. Some bigger states have more tha one district (nY has 4: northern, southern, easter, and western).
I can’t seak for all circuits or districts, but in every federal district court I have experieince with, the judge is assigned to a case by lottery. However, once a judge has a aprticular case, all related cases are then assigned to that same judge. WHich is whyall the Sybil Edmonds cases go to Walton.
Additionallly, just because a judge gets a particular case, does not mean he will keep it. A judge may recuse himself for conflict of interest, in which instance the case goes back in the lottery (the term is “back in the wheel” b/c they used to use a BINGO wheel with tiles that had the judges names on them).
Also, judges who have reached certain age are allowed to take “senior status” and do not have a minimum caselpad and are free to kick back a case to the wheel if they don’t want to take it.
Walton is a District court Judge for the District of Columbia. If the case is appealed it will go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
No, prosecutors cannot “refuse” judges, but they cann make a motio to force a recusal if they believe the judge has a conflict of interest.
But if you make that motion, you’d better win, or you trial is going to be like slow torture over hot coals.
Even if you win, he will make sure you suffer.
looseheadprop @
71
Aha! So you think that while Rove was in contact with Fitz from the start, his efforts to protect himself (say, by trying to offer up Team Cheney, who Rove cordially despises) weren’t successful?
I like the idea of Fitzgerald getting Rove and Cheney to sell each other out to him, each thinking that he’s now protected — until it’s too late.
yikes! …sure sounds like the system is rigged.
65, 80, 82 – I think you need to factor in Judge Walton’s ruling from the initial removal issue. Spec Pros won that motion hands down, but the Judge’s ruling spells out a very narrow mandate for the Spec Pros – lots of authority within that mandate, but not lots of mandate. fwiw
Slightly OT, but “lord” Conrad Black’s trial starts here in Chicago on March 5th. Fitzgerald is definately one busy fed. If anyone is interested, here are some goodies on the case:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/f…..pe/070105/
http://news.independent.co.uk/…..125416.ece
Phoenix Woman @ 210
I’m just saying the only person who ever said Rove was off the hook, was Rove’s lawyer. Not a source I trust.
I have no idea whether or not he is, I’m waiting and keeping my powder dry until I find out for sure.
jjk @ 213
So, if they do Opening Statements on Jan 22nd (my guess) and they said they had 4 weeks estimated for the trial, that takes us to Feb 22. That means only 2 weeks until the Black trial? I know Pat did a lot of the pre-trial stuff, but I don’t see how he can be trying Black himself with only 2 weeks to prep.
Either, this trial has bee handed off (which would surprise me) or it’s gong to need to be postponed. I just don’t see how it can be done otherwise.
Lhp & Immanentize – thanks for taking the time to answer my stupid question, will try and do better next time.
I do believe that the assistant prosecutors are working on the Black case.
looseheadprop @
52
One of the most parallel instances might be Ronnie Reagan testifying in favor of Poindexter after he was out of office. He testified via close-circuit. And–most shocking to me–he testified before the trial staeted, so the prosecutors couldn’t respond to anything that came up in trial. He basically got up, literally winked at Poindexter, and testified that he was a nice guy. The prosecution team was able to get him to back off some statements, but in the end the jurors said the testimony wasn’t all that interesting to their deliberations.
Obviously, we don’t yet know WHY Cheney is being called. If it’s to impeahch another witness (Martin?) then things ought to get more interesting.
looseheadprop @
215
I wish I had some verified info for you LHP, but only third (no fourth!) hand gossip and I could be completely wrong … but, that said – I think he may have handed over the Black case. But, to whom? Most of the first AUSAs here are already loaded up. It is as if Fitzgerald has put the entire state of Illinois in federal receivership.
I dunno, it boggles the mind how anyone could do it all.
Hey, I like your name. I was a loose head prop on my college rugby team, more than 30 years ago. (It sucks to get old). Anyway, I look forward to reading more.