Login Here
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.
Share This 
Spotlight
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 “1×2x6″ 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…