emptywheel:

This is based entirely on a statement in argument away from any potential jurors made by Wells. This was an argument over the admissible lines of questioning for voir dire.

Wells argued that it is clear, from Fitz’s filings, the the government intends to argue that the issue of classified status and whether or not Plame was “covert” enters into the trial, not by way of direct adjudication, but by way of the government’s argument about the motivation and state of mind for Scooter to engage in alleged perjury and false statements.

Accordingly, I should make clear I’m reporting Wells’ spoken inferences about Fitz’s intent regarding the case. It may well be he was floating a balloon to see if Fitz would comment one way or another by way of his continuing arguments about status, and I just don’t have in my notes or in my recollection any clear indication that Fitz corroborated this. He may have, through some nuance, but if he did, it escaped me.

I should also add that Wells only represented the positive part of the statement I made above, not the negative. By that I mean, he represented what he stated Fitz’s clear line of argument will be, not what it will not be. He made no comment, that is to say, about any possible motivation relating to cover up or being a firewall or acting upon the instructions of Cheney or the like.

Ah, in that case I would wait to see what Fitz does. He has harped on Cheney’s involvement in filings for over a year. And at the very least, intends to argue that Libby couldn’t have forgotten his actions because Cheney was involved closely in them. The question of whether that amounts to being a firewall is one of degrees, I think. But he will use Cheney’s actions as evidence and possible as motivation.

Most prosecutions aren’t politically motivated (which I’m guessing is what you experienced), but when they are, the bias is rarely liberal.

But don’t let me spoil our party. Go Fitz!

You’re right and I second the motion – Go Fitz!

Regarding the difference of opinions yesterday about whether jury selection would have to begin again from scratch, it looks like The American Thinker is once again doing her thinking outside of the reality-based realm:

Walton needs six more jurors to fill the jury pool but has only a handful available in the original pool. He ordered 10 jurors from an alternate pool to come to court on Monday in case they run out.

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..leak_trial

She has this wrong. It is not an alternate pool. It is from the same pool of 100 originally set for this case, but Judge Walton only required 60 of those to spend all week in the funnel of the selection process, hoping to find all the juros he needed from that number available.

He bet wrong.

Yeah, Exile.

I’m a big believer in our fact- and reason- based evidentiary system. But given the nature of our society, it’s hard to say that overall we have a ‘justice system’.

The correlation between discrimination and poverty, between poverty and violent crime/drug sales, and between violent crime/drug sales and incarceration has an undeniably disparate impact on poor people generally, and particularly people of color.

Lighter-skinned people are not more honest (and they certainly use their share of illegal drugs), but they are more likely to have or be entrusted with significant financial assets. They commit most fraud, bribery, embezzlement, gambling, price-fixing and tax evasion — crimes for which they are unlikely to be imprisoned.

And you wouldn’t know it from conservatives’ constant complaints, but the trial and appellate benches are dominated by right-wing appointees.

Most prosecutions aren’t politically motivated (which I’m guessing is what you experienced), but when they are, the bias is rarely liberal.

But don’t let me spoil our party. Go Fitz!

Walton needs six more jurors to fill the jury pool but has only a handful available in the original pool. He ordered 10 jurors from an alternate pool to come to court on Monday in case they run out.

link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..leak_trial

(I know that judges will give some close questions to the defense because the DA can’t appeal, but don’t tell me that defense attorneys regularly control the court rooms. The conviction rate is high, and the reversal rate is low.)

In an ideal world very few innocent people would ever have to defend themselves from criminal charges. The burden on normal (non-Libby, likely to be pardoned whatever happens) people facing the federal government on criminal charges is extremely onerous. I know from personal experience, it took me about 11 years to win my case and caused me to decide I didn’t even want to live in the United States of Greed anymore. Now I look back on the hard times of the trial etc. as the doorway that helped me discover a better place in the world – where I now have second generation grandchildren.

It was one of those rare trials where the prosecution got out-lawyered and (probably) out-spent.

The defense got Ito to move the line a bit on what’s relevant-admissible vs. what’s collateral-inadmissible. So some things got in that would ordinarily be kept out, and it took longer.

The punditry was outraged because prosecutors’ motions and objections are typically granted, with the result that most (non-white-collar) trials are short and ‘sweet’.

(I know that judges will give some close questions to the defense because the DA can’t appeal, but don’t tell me that defense attorneys regularly control the court rooms. The conviction rate is high, and the reversal rate is low.)

PS: Amen re prison rape is not a laughing matter.

… It appears that Bush and Cheney have guaranteed Scooter a more favourable jury, simply by ensuring that at least two-thirds of the pool is predisposed to think of them as lying bastards.

Don’t you mean to NOT think of them as lying bastards.’?

Actually, in light of the fact that no nukes were found in Iraq despite all the Administration officials claiming they were there, it’s now obvious that a potential juror is showing bias if they say they DON’T think the administration officials are all lying bastards.

I mean, if it’s an established fact and someone still denies they’re liars…

Faith-based justice?