<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Libby Trial:  Who&#8217;s Your Daddy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:31:19 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: MS</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479772</link>
		<dc:creator>MS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:32:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479772</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Who’s Your Daddy?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.answers.com/topic/who-s-your-daddy&quot;&gt;answers.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;“Who’s your daddy?” is a slang expression that takes the form of a rhetorical question. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Use of the phrase implies a boastful claim of physical or sexual dominance over the intended listener. Comedians suggest that the phrase is frequently spoken by men in a Freudian outburst during sexual intercourse.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Who’s Your Daddy?</b><br />
From <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/who-s-your-daddy">answers.com</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>“Who’s your daddy?” is a slang expression that takes the form of a rhetorical question. </p></blockquote>
<p>Use of the phrase implies a boastful claim of physical or sexual dominance over the intended listener. Comedians suggest that the phrase is frequently spoken by men in a Freudian outburst during sexual intercourse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neil</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479766</link>
		<dc:creator>neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479766</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Pach speaks to his audience when he writes, not at them.  He doesn’t talk up or talk down. His rythm is conversational.  I don’t think he fits anywhere on the daddy scale except that he is clearly a perceptive and expressive man.  Great post Pach.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pach speaks to his audience when he writes, not at them.  He doesn’t talk up or talk down. His rythm is conversational.  I don’t think he fits anywhere on the daddy scale except that he is clearly a perceptive and expressive man.  Great post Pach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Data Monster</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479654</link>
		<dc:creator>Data Monster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:22:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479654</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Isn’t the recent revelation that the White House felt it could “control” Russert interesting with respect to the fact that Libby claimed that he heard about Plame from Timmeh.  Could it be he was counting on Russert to cover-up his perjury?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn’t the recent revelation that the White House felt it could “control” Russert interesting with respect to the fact that Libby claimed that he heard about Plame from Timmeh.  Could it be he was counting on Russert to cover-up his perjury?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DeeinBigD</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479591</link>
		<dc:creator>DeeinBigD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479591</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;What great writing! I’d love to observe this trial, but can’t. After having read your article, I almost feel like I was there. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What great writing! I’d love to observe this trial, but can’t. After having read your article, I almost feel like I was there. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: litigatormom</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479560</link>
		<dc:creator>litigatormom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479560</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-479496&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pachacutec @ 169 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;litigatormom:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hey, gurrl!  How was the bus ride home?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It was okay.  We actually got back to NYC a little ahead of schedule.  Annoying to wake up and see that the NYT article on the march was on page 21, though!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-479496"><em>Pachacutec @ 169 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>litigatormom:</p>
<p>Hey, gurrl!  How was the bus ride home?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was okay.  We actually got back to NYC a little ahead of schedule.  Annoying to wake up and see that the NYT article on the march was on page 21, though!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kspena</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479544</link>
		<dc:creator>kspena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479544</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Beneath all the trumped-up ‘reasons’ for going to war with Iran is the neo-con rational for maintaining a continuous state of war so the executive can sustain its claim on the powers of the executive in a time of war. Bush has said many times that the war on terrorism is a l.o..n…g….war. But in the event that the war on terrorism may not be seen as a war at all, or in the event bush is forced to withdraw from Iraq, it becomes necessary to have a hot war somewhere else, and Iran is the next candidate.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beneath all the trumped-up ‘reasons’ for going to war with Iran is the neo-con rational for maintaining a continuous state of war so the executive can sustain its claim on the powers of the executive in a time of war. Bush has said many times that the war on terrorism is a l.o..n…g….war. But in the event that the war on terrorism may not be seen as a war at all, or in the event bush is forced to withdraw from Iraq, it becomes necessary to have a hot war somewhere else, and Iran is the next candidate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pachacutec</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479496</link>
		<dc:creator>Pachacutec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:36:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479496</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;litigatormom:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hey, gurrl!  How was the bus ride home?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>litigatormom:</p>
<p>Hey, gurrl!  How was the bus ride home?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: litigatormom</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479447</link>
		<dc:creator>litigatormom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:07:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479447</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;And Wells is putting on a show, the drama and &lt;b&gt;the string of bright shiny objects intended to keep us from seeing what they are really doing &lt;/b&gt;— in this case, they are trying to suss out what it is that Fitz has on them all, Libby being used as bait.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don’t think Wells is using Libby as bait. He wants to find out what he can about Fitz’s case in order to defend Libby.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The shiny object phenomenon is an element of almost every criminal defense.  The defendants, even the innocent ones, rarely have a straight linear story to tell — if they did, they probably wouldn’t have been indicted.  Being indicted doesn’t mean you’re guilty, but it almost always means your story has a lot of holes.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As for Wells, I cannot overemphasize this: the name of the game is “reasonable doubt.” He doesn’t have to prove Libby innocent, he simply has to get the jurors to have doubts that have some basis in fact about whether or not he is guilty. A defendant can be acquitted even if the weight of the evidence is against him: witness, O.J. Simpson.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How much doubt do you need to sow for it to be “reasonble”?  Age old question.  Under the law, it’s not enough to create some implausible scenario under which Libby “might” be innocent.  There has to be &lt;em&gt;some&lt;/em&gt; evidence supporting innocence, even if the weight of the evidence supports guilt.  Given the non-linear stories most defendants have to tell, getting 12 jurors to find reasonable doubt is hard.  But even one juror who has doubts can hang a jury, and buy the defendant more time as the government decides whether to retry, plea bargain, or give up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So Wells is going to try as many things as Walton allows him to in an effort to find the fact or facts that permit at least one juror to have enough doubts to refuse to convict.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And Wells is putting on a show, the drama and <b>the string of bright shiny objects intended to keep us from seeing what they are really doing </b>— in this case, they are trying to suss out what it is that Fitz has on them all, Libby being used as bait.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don’t think Wells is using Libby as bait. He wants to find out what he can about Fitz’s case in order to defend Libby.  </p>
<p>The shiny object phenomenon is an element of almost every criminal defense.  The defendants, even the innocent ones, rarely have a straight linear story to tell — if they did, they probably wouldn’t have been indicted.  Being indicted doesn’t mean you’re guilty, but it almost always means your story has a lot of holes.  </p>
<p>As for Wells, I cannot overemphasize this: the name of the game is “reasonable doubt.” He doesn’t have to prove Libby innocent, he simply has to get the jurors to have doubts that have some basis in fact about whether or not he is guilty. A defendant can be acquitted even if the weight of the evidence is against him: witness, O.J. Simpson.  </p>
<p>How much doubt do you need to sow for it to be “reasonble”?  Age old question.  Under the law, it’s not enough to create some implausible scenario under which Libby “might” be innocent.  There has to be <em>some</em> evidence supporting innocence, even if the weight of the evidence supports guilt.  Given the non-linear stories most defendants have to tell, getting 12 jurors to find reasonable doubt is hard.  But even one juror who has doubts can hang a jury, and buy the defendant more time as the government decides whether to retry, plea bargain, or give up.</p>
<p>So Wells is going to try as many things as Walton allows him to in an effort to find the fact or facts that permit at least one juror to have enough doubts to refuse to convict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: global yokel</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479444</link>
		<dc:creator>global yokel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479444</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Libby starts out with a huge disadvantage- He works for Dick Cheney.  Fitzgerald ought to drop the name ‘Cheney’ as often as possible in this trial, because the VP is perhaps the most universally disliked person in government.  Even the wingnuts don’t seem to have anything nice to say about him.   If I were in Judge Walton’s shoes I would declare Libby guilty, for no other reason than he is Cheney’s Chief of Staff.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Libby starts out with a huge disadvantage- He works for Dick Cheney.  Fitzgerald ought to drop the name ‘Cheney’ as often as possible in this trial, because the VP is perhaps the most universally disliked person in government.  Even the wingnuts don’t seem to have anything nice to say about him.   If I were in Judge Walton’s shoes I would declare Libby guilty, for no other reason than he is Cheney’s Chief of Staff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: clueless</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479433</link>
		<dc:creator>clueless</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/libby-trial-whos-your-daddy/#comment-479433</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-478979&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pachacutec @ 12 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-478972&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Eli @&lt;br /&gt;
                9              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Libby Trial Has Two Daddies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We’re having &lt;b&gt;a &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=JaJ-Zp1a7w8&quot;&gt;gay ol’ time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ole Fred (”Scooter”) Libbeystone gets outsmarted by his dog (”Dick”) again and gets locked out of the (white) house!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-478979"><em>Pachacutec @ 12 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="#comment-478972"><em>Eli @<br />
                9              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>The Libby Trial Has Two Daddies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We’re having <b>a <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=JaJ-Zp1a7w8">gay ol’ time</a></b>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ole Fred (”Scooter”) Libbeystone gets outsmarted by his dog (”Dick”) again and gets locked out of the (white) house!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
