Rayne, no you’re not. You’re gonna be a congress critter. We need you.

That sounds like an excellent plan.

Thank you for your pre-trial tour of the structure of a trial.

Fire Dog Lake is producing this like a nework mini-series or, like a Super Bowl pre-game show. It’s fun and informative.

Regarding apt metaphors. Your point that few people can relate to having been an umpire is well taken. Convesely, everyone knows ehat an umpire is, and that umpires are responsible for determing what actually happened and for ruling on it. Furthermore, it allowed him to imply, during his annoucement of Libby’s indictment, that it was Libby, who is charged with lying and perjury and obstruction, who was the player that kicked the sand in his eyes.

What better metaphor would illustrate a deliberate action to obscure Fitz’s view of the suspected ‘underyling’ crime(s)?

What are the chances that this trial will produce evidence that results in additional indctments?

SInce it is a case about OBSTRUCTING the investigation, if the obstruction were removed…..?

urban pirate @
158

blue e @ 62

WP – Bloggers at the Libby Trial

Thanks to the (patient) expertise we have here, us laymen are better educated on this stuff than most of the dopes at WaPo. That must frustrate them to no end – they can’t be quite as lazy.

Did you see ‘em get all in a snit with:

The common journalistic practices of verifying facts, seeking both sides of a story and subjecting an article to editing are honored mostly in the breach. Innuendo and rumor ricochet around the Internet as blogs link from one to another, at times making defamatory voices indistinguishable from the many others involved in this experiment of free expression.

Well, la-di my dah! (can’t stop giggling!)

The terrible part is they believe they do that…

earth651 — thanks much for the voice of experience.

But I’ve disabused myself of the idea over 10 years ago that I’d go to law school — except perhaps as a painful hobby in my retirement. Worked for a Fortune 100 company’s legal department while taking business law in business school; I realized I was not cut from the right cloth (at least not for that kind of practice, yeesh). I could handle getting the JD and sitting for the bar, but I don’t think I could practice. Might rather get a paralegal cert in retirement and volunteer to assist folks with filing Durable Healthcare POA’s, simple wills, stuff like that.

Rayne, no you’re not. You’re gonna be a congress critter. We need you.

blue e @ 62

WP – Bloggers at the Libby Trial

Thanks to the (patient) expertise we have here, us laymen are better educated on this stuff than most of the dopes at WaPo. That must frustrate them to no end – they can’t be quite as lazy.

Did you see ‘em get all in a snit with:

The common journalistic practices of verifying facts, seeking both sides of a story and subjecting an article to editing are honored mostly in the breach. Innuendo and rumor ricochet around the Internet as blogs link from one to another, at times making defamatory voices indistinguishable from the many others involved in this experiment of free expression.

Well, la-di my dah! (can’t stop giggling!)

Condi wants u to understand that she feels the heartbreak felt by families of those killed in Iraq.

How could this be tested empirically?

Fire Dog Lake is producing this like a nework mini-series or, like a Super Bowl pre-game show. It’s fun and informative.

Regarding apt metaphors. Your point that few people can relate to having been an umpire is well taken. Convesely, everyone knows ehat an umpire is, and that umpires are responsible for determing what actually happened and for ruling on it. Furthermore, it allowed him to imply, during his annoucement of Libby’s indictment, that it was Libby, who is charged with lying and perjury and obstruction, who was the player that kicked the sand in his eyes.

What better metaphor would illustrate a deliberate action to obscure Fitz’s view of the suspected ‘underyling’ crime(s)?

What are the chances that this trial will produce evidence that results in additional indctments?

Earth 651 – Typically you see comity between the prosecution and defense in federal court – it’s not like on TV. It might be Senate style comity, but it is comity nontheless. I’ve never understood it, but if I had to come up with an answer it would be – the odds really are that your client is going to be convicted, and needlessly pissing off/annoying the prosecution (or the judge) might have future consequences.

And neither the prosecution nor the defense, usually, wants to piss off the judge during a trial by making clearly out of bounds arguments/assertions – during any phase of the trial. That being, my experience is that it is much easier for the defense to “piss off” the judge than it is for the prosecution to do so, but then again, I think judges (or at least the rules/decisions they need to follow) favor the prosecution.

LHP – I really want an email address so as to share my (and others) “knowledge/experience” off line.

You can try LHPFDL at yahoo dot com, but I never check it unless I am specifically expecting an email there. You would have to give me a heads up that you sent one