I’m most happy after reading this post.

me too, man, me too.

yeah.

this place rocks.

thanks everyone.

you, too.
man, you too.

It is preferable as a matter of policy to punish offenders for their criminal conduct prior to compelling them to testify.

Anyone else thinking Fitz might be “punishing” Scooter before compelling him to testify against other bigger fish?

Yes.
I have had the feeling that Fitz had to prosecute Libby to get to the bigger, badder SOB’s.

As an aside, this is my first time here and I am addicted. My eyes are closing but I just cannot stop reading this. Thanks for the insight and intelligence of the original post and all the great comments.
This will be my new first look in the morning to see what is happening. Thank You!

emptywheel @ 168

LHP or CHristy

Just read Libby’s motion. THe key bit to me is the passage that says:

Brady and Giglio require the disclosure of any information or evidence tending to show that the testimony Mr. Fleischer is expected to provide against Mr. Libby is bargained-for testimony.

Given what Fitz said (”Mr. Libby didn’t come up at all”), it seems that Fitz only has to respond–the bargained-for testimony related to Rove or Cheney, not to Libby. Libby was just an unlucky “ricochet” (as Richard Cohen once said about Plame) in Ari’s testimony about others.

The thing is, if it was a “pig in Poke” It could not by defintion be “bargained for” testimony, b/c they did not know what they were getting!!!!

Does Fitz have to know what he is getting for it to be considered ‘bargained for’? He did in fact strike a bargain: you get immunity, I get your honest testimony. He doesn’t have to know what it is in advance to make the bargain. There is some other valid justification for why Fitz is not turning over what Wells is asking for.

This approach also fits fundamental prosecutor technique, small fish then big fish, and lays foundation for proving later charges.

much improves your position to have convictions each step along the way. Fitz will have to stop short of Cheney and Bush (while in office). the rest will be up to Congress. FITZ!

FITZ !!

You can’t be all bad if you blog here.

How many Nobel prizes have Williams’ grads garnered? Two Amherst grads have earned the prize. Who will finally redeem the reputation of the Ephmen?

Congratulations on the undefeated football season, the Little 3 and NESCAC Championship, and the induction of Coach Farley into the College Football Hall of Fame. Farley is Williams’ first football Hall of Famer. Amherst’s Freddie Scott ‘72 was already there to welcome him at his induction ceremony.

PS. It wasn’t the climate; location, location, location. I know rejection sucks. You’d think it’d be less of an issue after 146 years.

Great detective work.

If you are right, then AP (Matt Apuzzo) needs
to issue a clarification to another article where he said the Libby trial was THE END.

I don’t mean to be picky but the press stories
need to be honest and factual….

Jack

The same author claimed that if Libby were found quilty he’d receive a pardon, without attribution of any kind.

I think that is irresponsible journalism. Editors at the AP must suck too.

Bush hired a criminal attorney, he did not utilize the white house legal team. (not for the testimony to Fitz). This was the little tid bit that sent me off on this obsessive journey with the likes of all of you. It was noteworthy that he had done so. This has not been discussed in a long time but early on, there were rumors that Bush lied during his interview with Fitz. When I say rumors I mean, the kind you really can’t believe but hope it’s true. The fact is I haven’t heard anything, no rumor that his testimony check out fine!! Have any of you?? No leak about his testimony being that he had no clue, never heard about it etc… No reports like that. Only rumor that he lied. Fact remains, we don’t know what Bush said to Fitz or what Cheney said to Fitz. Also remember that there were interviewed fairly early on.

My gut says there is more here, but we will have to wait for facts to come out.

There is a significant Constitutional argument that says a sitting prez cannot be indicted for any crimes. The only way to deal with a wayward prez is via Impeachment thru Congress. The only way, per this argument.

No reason for Fitz to challenge the Constitutionality of that process. Let Fitz throw open the curtains onto Bush and Cheney, let the American People decide whether they like what they see, and if they don’t like what they see then let Congress carry out its Constitutional duties.

Ralph at 157 — Fitz was a double major at Amherst, and one of them was in mathematics, as I understand it.

I’m deflated, really quite crushed, to learn that Fritz went to Amherst. As Williams College grad, we know our rivals as the “defectors” who started their school in the early 19th century because they couldn’t take the rugged rural mountain climate at Williams. Maybe, just maybe, Fritz will finally redeem the reputation of the Amherst folks.