pow wow @ 128

There’s something just around the bend, I think, with regard to 11-707 (1/17/07), if not a FRofEvidence Rule 707:

How ‘funny’ it will be is yet unknown. But, in addition to Marcy’s Anatomy of Deceit coming off the presses on January 17th (last we heard), there will be a very revealing filing on Wednesday, 1/17, from the Special Counsel.

It will be his (necessary) response to a hostile Motion to Unseal (re certain redacted grand jury information in the appeal of Miller and Cooper) that was recently filed by Dow Jones & Company and the Associated Press, in the Circuit Court. [The Motion was filed the day after the defense announced Cheney would be a witness, and just before the holiday week in the intense pre-trial period. The government received an extension to respond (beyond the 8 days it otherwise had) until 1/17.]

It seems to me that the main point of the Motion to Unseal may well be to find out what the Special Counsel’s response will reveal about the status of the grand jury investigation (rather than actually getting access to the redacted material, which is a long-shot, I think, at least pre-trial).

And it seems very likely that we will learn, from ‘the horse’s mouth,’ the actual (ongoing or not) status of the overall investigation as a result of the government’s response, including perhaps even the status of certain potential subjects who have spoken publicly. This will be the first official, public word from the Special Counsel in over a year, on this front. It may also take some tea leaf reading, but I don’t think a response can be filed to this particular Motion that does not speak to the status of Fitzgerald’s investigation. So the questions of many people (and assumptions of many in the media) may well be answered (and contradicted) in the days ahead.

In other words: The characterization of Karl Rove (and Richard Armitage, and…???) as “cleared of charges” and of the investigation as “over” (per assertions in the Motion and the AP’s latest article) may be definitely, or not so definitely, confirmed – or contradicted – this week…

I’m counting on cboldt to scoop (or come close to scooping) the WSJ/AP on their own news on this front. cboldt’s website is here:

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/

And here’s the link to the original 12/20/06 Motion to Unseal:

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.c…..on-to.html

We’ll soon see. Stay tuned…

Pow Wow,

You is da’ bomb!

Now what would rock is if Fitz produced a document saying, “here’s the letter I sent Rove laying out his ongoing cooperation required otherwise the three charges against him would be real again.”

Not going to happen, mind you, but it’d be fun.

Ann in AZ @ 125

looseheadprop @ 89

Ann in AZ @ 77

When Leon Jaworski indicted the Watergate conspirators, I remember that Nixon was named an “unindicted co-conspirator.” My question is twofold: 1)Why 2) Does a VP get the same type of consideration.

I’m not sure I understood your question.

Do you mean why was Nixon and unindected co-conspirator. Easy answer, he was immune from prosecution for acts committed by the power of his office while in office.
Why are their unindicted co-conspirators? Sometimes they are John Does. You know there were othe conspirators, but you haven’t been able to ID them. Sometimes the Unindcted Co-conpsirator has an immunity deal or has had jeapardy attach in another case arising from the same facts and cannot be retried, yet we must explain his role in the conspiracy to the jury.(happens a lot with “spin off” cases)

Sometiems the prosecution believes that the unindictd co-conpsirator really is a memeber of the conspiracy, that person’s role must be explained to the jury in order for them to understand the case, but the prosecution either does not have enough Probale cause to indict this individual or the case against this individual is so weak he does not want to weaken the rest of his case by trying to prove up against the unindited co-conspirator

So does the VP get the same consideration, i.e. “I have the power to instantly declassify anything I want declassified!”?

Now THAT is an interesting theory! You think that’s going to be the thrust of his testimony? That he is going to get onthe stand and try to ex post facto authorize what Libby has done?

What I wouldn’t give to write the brief in that appeal….

But what if he gets up there and says “I have the power to declassify” and “I actually declassified Plame’s ID, so Libby would have no need to lie.

montag @ 64

Helpless Dancer @ 56

Just to screw things up? I get the impression that this administration is trying to run the clock out. Cheney is taking a considerable risk just by agreeing to appear. I hope his arrogance might lead him to say something that truly hurts. If he can be goaded into something truly revealing, it could collapse what little remains of the bush legacy

Cheney’s been around the block a few times, and he’s testified in front of juries before (when he was in the midst of some of the court cases in which Halliburton was involved).

Given his continued public assertions of things which are demonstrably not true, he’s either a pathological liar or he can bring himself to a very convincing level of certainty. Either way, a jury may find him credible. It’s up to the prosecution to show inconsistencies in his testimony to break down that impression of credibility.

But, don’t expect Toad-In-The-Hole to be an easy nut to crack. Just because he may be even more wacko than Bush doesn’t mean he’s not clever. And, he’s going to be coached by Libby’s lawyers until the routine is down pat.

Fitzpatrick’s got his work cut out for him.

I heard a story around Foley Square, way back when Fitz inteviewed the President and Cheney at the WH. Supposedly, voices were raised and the shouting could be heard down the hall. The rumor’s originator, who was defenately in a position to know this fact, refused to ID the voices.

However, given PatFitz’s well deserved reputation for patience and sweet tempered demeanor, who do we supposed was the likely loud mouth? Hmmm.

Could it be a guy with so little self control nor respect for his own surroundings that he told a sitting senator to go fuck himself right on the Senate floor?
That’s my guess anyway.

Maybe Fitz willnot have such a tough time after all?

Yup. How do you think a DC jury would respond to Cheney telling Fitz to go fuck himself.

And to think I was worried about MY language in the court room?

Universal NP Brotherhood Local 42

I had a similar message from the Tickpickers too.

KathieinMN @
53

LHP – thanks for your informative posts – they are treasures!

Just a little nitpick – since ‘privilege’ is a word that will be used a lot in our discussions, I wish the word would get spelled correctly (except for the inevitable typos to which we are all prone (-: ). I have seen several commenters using the word, and with three different spellings – none of which were the correct one – LOL!

Sorry – just another prof here who has corrected too many papers and theses. )-:

Oops – “none of which *was* ….”

(she says, nitpicking her own self)

one more nitpick on this thread and you have to start paying dues to the Nitpicker’s Union

Nitpicker’s Union, Local 4513

Sec. 4.3 4.2. Distribution Controls. (a) Each agency shall establish controls over the distribution of classified information to assure ensure that it is distributed only to organizations or individuals eligible for access who also have and with a need-to-know the information.

(b) In an emergency, when necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or in defense of the homeland, the agency head or a designee may authorize the disclosure of classified information to an individual or individuals who are otherwise not eligible for access. Such actions shall be taken only in accordance with the directives implementing this order and any procedures issued by agencies governing the classified information, which shall be designed to minimize the classified information that is disclosed under these circumstances and the number of individuals who receive it. Information disclosed under this provision or implementing directives and procedures shall not be deemed declassified as a result of such disclosure or subsequent use by a recipient. Such disclosures shall be reported promptly to the originator of the classified information. For purposes of this section, the Director of Central Intelligence may issue an implementing directive governing the emergency disclosure of classified intelligence information.

Only 4 people were aware of the declassification, as stated in previous records, and it has also been noted that the info document was being put through declassification by someone unaware of the new status.

in addition it does look like the supreme court is in their pocket, whatever they claim I beleive the courts will agree

When the Democrats failed to challenge the Alito nomination, I felt that was a turning point to a downward spiral of democracy.

I have the highest respect for John Dean and thank him for speaking out for us in the many ways he does. His contributions are valuable beyond adjectives and compliments.

I’m in agreement with you that the claimed power shouldn’t stand, but look at everything else they have managed to pull off.

jayt @ 148

looseheadprop says:
January 15th, 2007 at 10:29 am *

Normally, cross examination is limited to the subjects covered on direct. Two major exceptions: 1) when the witness is on both witness lists, then it’s kinda a free for all;2) when the witness says something on direct that “opens the door” to a new subject matter.

I’ve never done a crim trial in fed court. I’m a state guy. But my witness list always includes “and any witness that the State calls”. Therefore, at least here in Marion County, Indiana, cross is so incredibly wide open that you would think that judges never before heard the objection that “Your Honor, that’s beyond the scope of Direct” (although I’ve certainly made it)(and I’ve gotten away with an amazing variety of “cross”-exam’s)

I see Cheney’s testimony as being small and tight – and essentially nothing more than a lay witness memory argument.

Am I wrong?

Is it going to be done live, or is it on Memorex?

Do Fed crim trial lawyers put that little catcha-all “and any witness the other side may call” on their witnesss list so as to be able to cross as to anything their little hearts so desire?

Many defense lawyers do.

Is there a way to find out if Fitzgerald has done this or has specified Cheney has a witness — probable or certainly or not?

7. What is the purpose of the section of the amendment dealing with emergency disclosure of classified information?

One of the issues that arose in the wake of 9/11 was awareness of the limitations imposed by the lack of authority under E.O. 12958 to pass classified information to persons not otherwise eligible (e.g. local and state authorities) in an emergency. As a result, a section has been added specifically authorizing an agency head or designated person to share classified information with individuals not otherwise eligible to receive it and specifying procedures to be followed. This is especially important in the context of homeland security.

4. When do the changes to this amendment to E.O. 12958 go into effect?

The changes are effectively immediately, except for the section on identification and marking of classified information, section 1.6. The identification and markings section will become effective 180 days from the signing of the amendment or September 22, 2003. These markings and other changes contained in the amendment will be further defined in the revision to the Information Security Oversight Office Implementing Directive No. 1.

I know that is obscenely simplified but it shows a need for exception in emergency.

The quiet part that really bugged me is the exception to proper marking that was delayed for 180 days from the date of March 23(?) 2003