Tweet
I just hit Plame House, arriving to find Pach and Swopa in a flurry of domestic bliss. We are drinking tea and scoping out the week ahead, which should kick off with 7 hours of Libby testimony tapes. Swopa said anyone who wanted to watch the Superbowl was welcome to turn the TV on. Nobody moved. We are geeks.
It's really exciting to be here. Sadly, I think I may have scared Dick Cheney off, and have to agree with Marcy — I don't see any way they call him to the stand. But one of the burning questions here is, what the hell is Libby's defense? After having thrown Karl Rove's name into the lion's den during opening statements like a pork chop suit, even Judge Walton has since noted that nothing of the "Libby as Rove's as scapegoat" theory has shown up in any of the defense questioning. One has to wonder why they decided to include Cheney's name on the witness list at all if calling him would do nothing but implicate both Cheney and Libby further. Pach speculated that it allowed the defense to push the questioning of potential jurors with regard to knowledge of Dick Cheney and if their response was negative strike them for cause in a way that they would not have been able to do otherwise. I really haven't heard any other reason that sounds valid
And the great unanswered question — will Libby testify? Is Libby's ego so big he won't be able to help himself? Do the lawyers actually think this is a good idea? Or as some have speculated, is Libby now pinning his hopes on appeal before a friendly judge? It is not out of the realm of possibility that they will mount a rather tepid defense and then call it a day.
Predictions?
301 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Feb 4
Jane!
Jane!
Happy Plame Days – and good healing.
Jane! Welcome to DC, keep warm!
Who’s this Lucky character? And gay cowboys – plural?
Welcome to Plame House, Jane, so very glad you could make it!! Locked and loaded, ready for your blogging tomorrow!!
Hey Jane!!!
SOOOO Glad you are in D.C. to witness and document the atrocities.
While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking war with Iran, Americans appear far more alarmed by the dangers of global warming. Many of them must regret not voting for “Ecological Al” Gore in 2000.
While icebergs melt, the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting very dangerous. The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran.
In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and U.S. Air Force recon aircraft — along with U.S. and British Special Forces — are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations. CIA and Britain’s MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran’s Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.
http://www.torontosun.canoe.ca…..22931.html
Pach speculated that it allowed the defense to push the questioning of potential jurors with regard to knowledge of Dick Cheney and if their response was negative strike them for cause in a way that they would not have been able to do otherwise. I really haven’t heard any other reason that sounds valid
Damn, but Pach’s most likely right on the money. And I was counting on Cheney’s next coronary to keep this trial going into April. Libby’s pretty much damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t testify, ego or not. I predict a Libby “Hail Mary.”
And from me – “Hail Jane!!!”
RevDeb @ 6
Very good to be here. Been waiting for this moment for a loooong time.
Welcome to DC Jane!
Jane in the plamehouse and all is right with the world.
Hey Jane,
Originally I would have said no, but as more damaging stuff comes out, he may feel he has to control damage.
Which will sink him entirely, I think.
Jane Hamsher @ 9
Just do us all a big favor and don’t try to do too much too soon. We want you in fine form for the long haul.
You are an amazing woman, Jane! Stay well, kick butt!
The point of Libby’s defense is not to defend Libby, but to protect Cheney.
Libby is falling on his sword.
A perfect lieutenant to the end.
Any conjecture on why a pardon hasn’t occurred yet, or might not still? Granting Libby a pardon would piss people off, but since when has that stopped Bush from doing anything?
Welcome to DC, Jane!
I’m frankly surprised the trial has gotten this far. If Libby or Cheney take the stand, I’d say all bets are off for what happens next.
Could one strategy to try for either an mistrial or a conviction with a clear path to an appeal?
Welcome to DC, Jane!
P.S. Prince kicked ass!
The game? Not so much.
I think Libby’s prepared to take it for Cheney.. until Christmas of ‘08 when he’ll get his full pardon from Bush and a cushy job at a repug think tank.
only one funny ad so far – car full of attractive young ladies and a motley crew of men getting all hot for the car – stripping (and they’re not chippindales) – ladies covering their eyes “when’s it safe to look?”
What did Laura know? And when did she know it?
prediction — during cross, Wells is going to get Russert to say that he knew the “ambassador” was “Joe Wilson” before Wilson did his op-ed. Wells is then gonna call two defense witnesses….Mitchell and Gregory. Mitchell will testify regarding her unwithdrawn report of July 8th that CIA “covert operatives” sent Joe Wilson, and Gregory will testify that Ari told him about “Wilson’s wife”. Wells will then close, and try to confuse the jury into thinking that because Russert knew who Joe Wilson was before the op-ed, and his subordinates knew other key pieces of info before the Novak column — and he’s shown that nobody’s memory is perfect, there is “reasonable doubt” that Russert did tell Libby about Plame…..
Oklahoma kiddo @ 20
All Lara knows if that she has to deliver her idiot child husband every morning to his office relatively sober.
The people in this administration who should be convicted and sent to jail, never will be.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 20
Laura knows something?
ya think???
RevDeb @ 13
What RevDeb says. With any luck this is just the beginning of a very long and most glorious pageant. {{{{{{{Jane}}}}}}}}} Thank you.
Only if the wouldbe pardoners aren’t in jail themselves by then…
Anyone get a gander at shrub’s $3.9 trillion budget request???…. there’s small government conservatism for ya…
Bush’s $2.9 trillion request is ’sticker shock’
POSTED: 5:10 p.m. EST, February 4, 2007
Story Highlights
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush will send Congress a $2.9 trillion spending request Monday
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…..index.html
Jay @
19
Jane!
I hope you’re doing well. I’m looking forward to the week ahead and trying to keep up with the trial while I try to work at the same time.
(((Jane in DC!))) Good golly Queen Pup, I was starting to worry about you! Hope you packed a lasso.
OT: A SWOPA sandwich requires a popcorn garnish.
Blub @ 27
One hell of a bathtub.
I’ll admit that I’m not as up to speed on this trial as I should be, having confused Matlin with Martin in last weeks proceedings and all. But I do try to cut to the chase.
Ari got immunity for the calls from AF1, so I guess Bartlett is potentially open to a death penalty related indictment? I hope he sleeps well in any case.
Cheney might not testify, but watching Fitz grill him would be glorious.
Ed*ard Teller @ 8
Yeah, that seems about right. Let’s remember, though, that Judge Walton has made it pretty clear that Libby’s memory defense does not come in if he does not testify. He’s also made pretty clear (if only to those following closely) that all the CIPA work was built around the presumption encouraged (or at least not disabused) by the defense since day one. Wasting judge’s time and effort on issues that you never had an intention to bring up, not a good idea come sentencing time (assuming a guilty verdict happens).
Someone ought to go back through the opening and through the jury questioning (I’m sure Fitz will have his team do so) to see just how many promises – express or implied – the defense made. One could easily argue that the part of Wells’ opening highlighting Deadeye and raising the possibility of his testifying would justify an “adverse inference-missing witness” charge to the jury…. It almost certainly will permit Fitz to argue that, if what Scooter said was in fact true, he should have and could have called Deadeye, and the jury should think ill of him for not doing so.
Of course, watching Deadeye take the Fifth (the only rational legal, though suicidal politically course for him testifying) would surely be entertaining.
Be well, Jane.
Wonder if the prez will wait until after the trial to launch ‘operation liberate Iran’?
HotFlash @
30
Has Grover-the-hypocrite kicked shrub to the curb yet? Of course not.
All I can say is, if shrub is determined to drown us all in a bathtub, can’t he at least do it on a tight budget?
My guess is that Libby wants Cheney to say that Libby was given the ok to leak “declassified material to the press”. Problem is the timeline… Libby was flapping his lips before material was actually declassified…
… But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes….
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..703nj1.htm
Trying to go for appeal was pretty much what G. Gordon Liddy did during the Watergate burglar trial. That didn’t work out so well for him.
Libby… Liddy… hmm…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 33
That would be a helluva “wag the dog.”
Some argue that with his choice of ‘defense’ Libby has thrown a possible pardon out the window.
A Rube Goldberg coke ad – i love any kind of Rube Goldberg contraption
My predicition is that Jane Hamsher will be eagerly greeted at the trial tomorrow… and that she will be some very interesting legal maneuvering this week.
OT, I had a conversation with a decades-long friend of mine earlier, a guy who has been a Republican since I’ve known him. About 4 years ago, he started “coming to the light” (not my doing – I’ve avoided talking politics with him because he was so hard-nosed, I didn’t want to waste my breath). He knows I’m very politically active for the Democrats. He just brought up, out of the blue, that he’s “sorry to tell me he’s not going to support Hillary, because he wants to vote for Edwards.
I think he was just as surprised to learn I’m not excited about Hillary (perhaps because I’m female, there is the assumed gender support) that I was to learn he’d vote for Edwards.
He tells me that Edwards appeals to him because he seems honest, smart, and trustworthy. I have a feeling this will be one of the most important qualities in our next President. If my friend won’t support Republicans because he doesn’t trust them anymore, he will vote for a Democrat who seems trustworthy.
I predict he is not the only registered Republican who feels this way.
Regardless of the verdict in this trial, or even possible pardoning, I think this has been enormously damaging to the Cheney Shadow Government. David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo lays out the case of the Cheney-led coup d’etat (also see Digby’s take), and I think enough of the curtain has finally been pulled back that it’s going to continue to unravel for ol’ Dead-eye Dick. Thank the heavens for a Democratic-controlled Congress.
I also think the Washington, D.C. media have been exposed as the Heathers that they are, and the credibility of the cocktail weenie class has taken a pretty big hit. So this country has already come out ahead from the Libby trial, I just hope we see more results. But in two weeks my pessimistic expectations sure have been surpassed.
p.lukasiak @
22
How do you think Fitz would deal with that contingency on redirect?
hey jane, great to see you…I sent some mail to you, did you get it?
RevDeb @
37
http://www.democraticundergrou…..036_01.jpg
Have fun in D.C., Jane, that’s where I grew up (to the extent that I have, that is).
I can’t wait. So glad you’re there!
I can’t see Libby surviving testimony. But we’ll see.
I am led to believe rove has been cooperating with fitz, it’s the only reason I can see that he wasn’t indicted
if rove is cooperating, libby central will need to throuw out some shiney obhects to impeach rove’s testimony
this isn’t bad strategy, rove is not gonna be trusted in the first place, anything that adds to that sentient will help the defense
On the question of will Libby testify, while I don’t do criminal law, most defense lawyers I know really really hate having their clients testify, as they usually make things worse. In this case it looks like they are backed into a bit of corner if the judge won’t allow a memory defense absent Libby testifying.
More popcorn, please.
Jane,
First things first! Wowsa Lady Jane! Tis nice to know you made it to the Plame House, and that you haven’t lost any of that ol’ Plame magic!
Now on to Scoot’s defense. Can’t figure out what they’ve got left to use.
His original “I lost my memory” defense has been shot by both Fitz, and even his own attorneys.
I also can’t see Scoots getting on the stand unless he has been really, really practicing that “I don’t remember” rope-a-dope spiel.
Like you, I agree the “Rove threw me under the bus” tactic fell over with a great big sploosh. Can’t see the Defense calling either Rove or Cheney ’cause both their closets are full. Who knew that peccadillos were a Repug’s
onlybest friend?And for the rest of Fitz’s tenure, it sure seems like a Pardon is off the table too.
Nope, it sure seems like his lawyers are all kinda just going through the motions for Scoots and praying that something appealable will magically appear, and “OBTW Scoots, you’ll look great in orange”.
I think Dick wanted to testify until he found out Jane was coming to town.
libby impeaching rove’s testamony – all these guys telling on eachother – oh, yes, keep on spilling your guts!
puppethead @ 41
only to us and that’s preaching to the choir
if libby is found innocent, all the wing nuts will disregard the testimony, point to the verdict, have a party and claim everything cheney had done is vindicated
fitz will not get another trial if this one fails, everyone points at the progressives and laughs
this proved to us onoly what we have already known, that cheney comitted treason and exposed covert assets at great harm to our country
but we knew that and the people that still support the administration are blind to anything
we need to win
“da bears”, in cages
dilireus @ 16
Wrt to a Pardon, see my comment earlier in the week.
Predictions?
I think Fitzgerald’s got one perjury count in the bag (can’t act surprised about something on Thursday that you were telling someone the previous Monday).
Anything else that happens will be gravy. By Wednesday or Thursday, we’ll already have indications of whether or not Wells, Jeffress, et al, are going to bail on the trial and have already started working on the appeal in the midst of the trial.
Whether Cheney testifies or not, everything after the prosecution rests is going to be damage control–and that will be fun to watch.
LandOfTheFree @ 40
LandO, wrt previous and MI congressional. My server is down and I couldn’t set up the addy I gave you, but you can reach me at webmistress at thelorekeeper daht com Would *love* to talk, I want to know what’s happening in places where I don’t have relictives ;)
LandOfTheFree @ 40
Just curious. Why doesn’t your friend like Hillary?
So THAT’S what’s been happening…everyday around three, Robert Goulet comes around my office and messes with my stuff!
Who said this:
Jane, we all love you and admire your stamina. Please don’t overdo.
As much as I perhaps used to like Nader, (years ago), now not so much maybe, sometimes the boy gets it (like with Corvairs):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Sunday left the door open for another possible White House bid in 2008 and criticized Democratic front-runnerHillary Rodham Clinton as “a panderer and a flatterer.”
Asked on CNN’s Late Edition news program if he would run in 2008, the lawyer and consumer activist said, “It’s really too early to say. … I’ll consider it later in the year.”
Nader, 72, said he did not plan to vote for Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York and former first lady.
“I don’t think she has the fortitude. Actually she’s really a panderer and a flatterer. As she goes around the country, you’ll see more of that,” Nader said.
Jane!!!
Pach! Swopa!
So glad to hear you’re all there safely, and making yerselves as comfy as possible.
May you have a smooth & productive week. Do take extra measures to stay warm. ‘fraid the jetstream is sending frigid stuff in abundance. We’ll try to do our best to soak up as much of that as we can in OH before it can reach you.
Jane. Please make sure you get plenty of rest. You’re a treasure. Rest = heal. Simple as that. Let those other 2 pamper you! ;->
Pach. Meant to tell you some time ago, I really appreciated your answering some questions earlier about personality ’stuff’. You’re a good teacher(!) I immediately found new clues that helped me to “file” experiences with some folk that I have had to deal with in the past. I seemed to have done o.k., but it’s very helpful to have your after-the-fact explanations of what I might have been dealing with. Whew. Ethology & sensitivity developed during years of animal training does give decent skills, after all(!) I got thru some trying times just fine, or as well as perhaps anyone could. But now I have a better idea of what I was dealing with.
I owe you, bigtime. Hope you don’t charge too much. ;->
I welcome Jane to Plame House be reaffirming that my contempt for Joe Lieberman will never subside.
scarecrow @ 59
a while ago we saw white house ip’s google searching some smear terms against fitz
I said back then we were witnessing the whurlitzer during the first throws of a campaign
I don’t remember which thread that was
There is one way for Rove to recapture the cable headlines, the blogs, and the front pages. Iran.
ad – takeoff on that gruesome pick-up-the-hitchhiker movie = the hitchhiker is carrying an ax and a beer(famous name). Looks extremely sinister. pick him up anyway. cut to something, cut back to car with sinister guy in back and a hitchhiker on side of road with a chainsaw and a beer – ax guy horrified they would pick up a chainsaw guy.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 58
Best ad so far. Hands down.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 60
I’d like to hear Nader ask the families of those killed in Iraq whether there is any difference between Republicans and Democrats.
I don’t believe Al Gore would have lied us into a war in Iraq, or ignored (and then lied about) the warnings the Clinton administration gave Bush about bin Laden.
What do you think?
Nuck Fader.
Jane, I hope the defense does not keep you from enjoying Cheney on the stand – you truly deserve to watch him sweat it out on Fitz’s cross.
perris @ 52
All of the above.
I saw Nader earlier today as well. I’m going to be extremely upset if he decides to run and screws up the election for us again. He’s the last thing in the world we’re going to need.
Kathryn in MA @
39
Have you seen Def Lauf Der Dinge ? It’s the mother of all Rube Goldbergs.
i’ll google that
Glad you’re in DC, Jane! You scared Deadeye Dick off, lol. I spoke to Bob Greenwald in Memphis at the Media Reform Conference. He said to say hello to you.
perris 64
;->
Jane,
I have been pretty busy recently and not commenting. But your safe arrival in DC brings me out of my silence.
This is the FDL convergence, even more than election day in CT. We cannot all be watching, like we were with Sam Ervin asking the questions years and years ago.
So we are counting on you to be our eyes and ears.
And because this is so bloody confusing, would you mind being my brain, too?
We are all so thrilled you can be there.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 68
Gore is the choice here. ;0)
When one sees Nader talking in public it’s safest to assume you’re hearing something as if from Mary Matalin. Nader never criticizes GOP politicians, yet he has plenty to say all the time about Democrats. I believe he’s a GOP tool who’s role is to be an outsider attacker to keep a two-front assault on Democrats and confuse swing voters (if there are many left).
OK 78
Second that!
Adie @ 75
I wish I was kewel and knew what those hyroglics meant
I been thunkin’ the Bush outfit was anachronistic. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe it’s me that’s out of time.
[[[[[Jane]]]]]
Adie @ 79
draft Gore. Accept no substitutes.
Mad Dogs @
54
Let me add this to your excellent analysis:
From Wikipedia:
For more information, please click on the following links:
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm
punaise @ 83
I’m certainly with you on that score. I have no second choice at this point, so I really hope he runs.
SharonRB @ 85
add me to that list too. After the Oscars and the Nobel (we hope) would be the perfect time to jump in.
Gore/Webb.
Now that’s the ticket!
Adie @ 80
Have you signed up yet? Draft Gore.
http://www.boardsmag.com/scree…..cials/581/
had to watch the whole thing again = brilliant. did i hear it took 1,000 takes for it all to work?
SharonRB @
72
What the says is so right.
What he does about it is so wrong.
I’ve never liked Ralph Nader, but I used to have enormous respect for him. If he runs, no matter who the Dems and GOP field, Nader will get less than 1%. Who, at this point, could work for him with genuine conviction?
I just got involved with a group here in Michigan organizing to help draft Gore. They’ve already filed with the FEC as Volunteers to Draft Al Gore in 2008, or something like that. We have a meeting in Ann Arbor on the 18th. Right now there are three groups — one being started here in Metro Detroit, one in the Ann Arbor area and one in the Lansing area. We will meet once a month as a combined group and the separate groups will meeting individually as well.
The more I hear from people in the know, the more I think he’ll run.
mc @ 87
webb is too new
gore/feingold
Let me make two things clear here. I dislike Nader for helping to defeat President Gore. I dislike Hillary equally, or more. For different reasons.
perris @ 81
dang. o.k. re-read yer own comments there & tell me it didn’t sound as if you were tossing ulcer-inducing thots at shooter & crew. that’s all I was thinking. I do so want to believe they’re that stoopid. ;-> = birder’s ;-), but maybe doesn’t translate thru the toobz so well?
perris @ 81
It’s an emoticon, more here.
Gore/Feingold would be my dream ticket, but Gore/Obama or Gore/Clark would work for me, too. For that matter, Gore/anybody-but-LIEberman would work for me.
perris @ 92
Gore/Sebelius?
HotFlash @ 96
but I can’t find which emotocon ;-> represents
So that’s what’s inside Coke machines!
Th PO tells me my copy of Marcy’s book should hit my mailbox tomorrow; it checked in at the local office yesterday morning. But I got Joe Wilson’s book yesterday.
I hear that the GOoPers are mad because the Dems are asking for $2.5 billion to fund the 9/11 commission recommendations (without consulting them, imagine that!) and are saying that it’s too expensive. But they’re willing to spend a hundred times that on a war without public support.
punaise @ 84
NO SUBSTITUTES!
SharonRB @
97
You don’t think Gore would choose Lieberman again, do you?
I can’t believe the turnovers!
LandOfTheFree @ 40
After Gore wins his Academy Award and gets the Nobel Peace Prize, is it really worthwhile for him to get into the dirty fight of running for president? He’s become an international leader, too big to be the post-Bush American President. He’d be great, but I think he’s doing more important things now.
I predict that Libby will testify. If he doesn’t, his whole defense falls apart. If he does testify, he has a small chance. I also don’t believe he’d have much of an appeal if he doesn’t testify–too much hope for something “appealable” to just magically appear without his testimony. If he’s convicted, I seriously doubt he’ll be pardoned. There’s nothing in it, really, for a pardon.
On more positive days, I believe the perfect storm is brewing–This trial is just one more cut with many more coming that will sink Bushco. For all everyone said about the trial beforehand: that it was not about the war, it has indeed been very much about lying to wage war. And Cheney sits at the heart of it.
off to have some fun, catch up later
puppethead @ 103
I can’t imagine anything more important that turning the Titanic away from the iceberg.
scribe @
32
I’d have to agree. I don’t know the law, but can only assume that Walton will not be pleased if the defense used shooter on the witness list to further and disingenuously cull the jury. Walton has already appeared to be exasperated with Wells on at least a couple of occassions. Probably not a good idea to annoy him further.
Jane’s in the house!!
punaise @ 68
I pretty much fail to understand the hostility toward Nader–even considering the general defamation that he caused Bush to be elected.
Virtually everything he says about policy issues are in dead-on agreement with what most progressives see as needed changes. And his assessments of many Democrats are that they are calculating triangulators–and that’s true.
Any idiot could see that Bush and Rove were using the timing of the IWR to create fear in Dems about the 2002 election to get what they wanted. And Dems caved in and voted to give Bush and Rove what they most wanted–even though it was not only wrong, but was politically inadvisable, as well. That’s the sort of failure of will that progressives–and Nader–have consistently despised.
Nader’s the wrong guy to push that message, but, let’s not forget that Nader didn’t pick Holy Joe as his running mate, and Nader didn’t stab Al Gore in the back immediately after the election. It wasn’t Nader who ran from the one guy who could campaign for him effectively. It wasn’t Nader who was spreading the smears in the media about Gore and the internet and “Love Story.”
If one wants to concentrate blame, you could just as well complain about the results in Florida being the fault of so-called Jews for Buchanan, or the Constitution Party, or the anti-Castro Cuban nationalists, for that matter.
Nader didn’t cause Gore to lose Florida. Bush stole it with the help of the Supreme Court.
One day, long after he’s dead, people are going to wonder why Nader was ignored about issues of corporatocracy, Congressional corruption and the role of powerful money in politics.
If anything, Nader is the wrong guy with the right message at the wrong time. Even that will be a far better legacy than George Bush will leave.
RevDeb @ 107
RevDeb… ;0)
mc @ 66
I like the fiddler crabs, too. Fiddler crabs are kewl!
Nader did not help Gore in 2000. Am I wrong on this?
So who all is planning to go to the YearlyKos in Chi. this summer?
RevDeb @ 113
ME!
Gore/? in ‘08!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 94
And how do you feel about Joe Lieberman?
Nobel Peace prize, Oscar, dealing with Iraq – I know which ones I would pick
FDL Ladies,
Glad to know you are enjoying Plame House. I have very much ejoyed and appreciated your live blogging from the trial. So take some time to relax and re-energize cause we need to know that we are getting to the truth and bringing it into the light of day.
There was a great piece on Huffpo yesterday by Brent Brudowsky (who helped write the CIA identies law) and he gave some interesting predictions…
(snip)
Would Fitz call VEEP Cheney as a witness?
HotFlash @ 116
You funny. ;0)
Fitz has put together a pretty rock solid case. I think it’ll come down to his cross on the defense witnesses. If I can believe the rumors, his cross examinations are devastating.
Dana @
105
What does Scooter do for an encore after the jury hears his grand jury testimony?
I just re-read the post, and OMG, I haven’t answered the question.
Libby will not testify. I know Judge Walton said that it would be suicide if he didn’t, but all Scooter can do is lie more and get even deeper in. They really don’t care if he wins, he’s just got to hold tight.
So he will say nothing, take his lumps, get early parole for good behaviour, then get very quiet think-tank jobs ever after. I am pretty sure they won’t off him as long as he is in the public eye, and if he is smart there is a safe deposit box somewhere that will be opened if he dies unexpectedly.
Who is holding the bets?
steelthing @ 118
Steelthing – thank you for helping make it happen!
goodgawd. i wuz tryin’ to signify that i’m an hopelessly addicted bird-watcher, so i’ve been signin’ meself off wit a happy-birdbeak smileyface, instead of regulationsmile.
sorry if that’s not translating thru the toobz. seriously, it looks strange here as typed, then it seems o.k. in my dear friend Preview, but I don’t want to incite any more sectarian violence in this world.
what to do?! what to do?!
Maybe CNN could take a poll on the subject?
(goodness, can anyone tell we’re gettin’ all revved up for Monday to start??? whew.
breathe, everybody. where’d I put that paper bag?)
(mod note – watch the zigs … thanks!)
Ed*ard Teller @ 101
Of course I don’t! I was being facetious.
HotFlash – will do! It’ll take me a little bit to get setup, myself. Thanks! (p.s. Toronto is one of my very favorite cities. I try to go once a year because it’s such a great city.)
I asked my friend about his feelings re: Hillary Clinton. Some of his concern is “Clinton/Bush fatigue” – he wants new ideas. He also admits to an “irrational fear of her” (his words, which made me laugh). I’ll be curious to learn more about this.
Interestingly enough, my spouse (a rather liberal guy) says he feels the same way our buddy does about Edwards. To these men, John Edwards seems like an intelligent man who can be trusted. Both of these men in my life see it as a gut-level instinct, and they will be carefully looking at voting records and inconsistent statements and actions of candidates. Seems to me that a lot of voters I know will be doing a LOT of research on their next Presidential vote. They don’t want to get another George Bush (not that my guy voted for him).
What about all of you out there – do you know a lot of Republicans who are responding positively to any Democratic party candidates for President? Or, Republicans who are about as disgusted with the whole Cheney/Libby/Rove and friends disdain for the truth, as evidenced in this trial? My Republican friend is also following the trial a little bit, and he’s disgusted with “the constant coverups”.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 111
You are correct.
Of course, it is for a far more cynical reason that I would love to see Ralph Nader run for president again this year. He is, quite simply, the Democrats’ Ross Perot. In his soon to be released book, ‘Bush Country,’ John Podohoretz writes, “It’s beyond dispute that if Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Al Gore would be president today.” With the nation’s electorate split down the middle, every vote will be crucial in November. If Nader can convince enough voters on the Left that he is the only real alternative to the political establishment they distrust so intensely, his presence in the race this year could once more make the difference.
From a wingnut for shrub, circa 2004.
The fight is on several fronts. Republicans, DLC, Clinton political machine. It doesn’t look all that inviting. I’m up to it though.
mc @ 120
It would be a real pity if Fitz weren’t able to show us his full range of talents in this trial. It would sure make for a raucous Fitzmas indeed if he were able to to his best for us all. As someone once said, “Bring it On.”
puppethead @
104
I got jumped yesterday here when I pointed out that Gore hasn’t made any statements about the Lebanon oil spill, which happened last summer. It is the largest eco-catastrophe in the modern history of the eastern Mediterranean. He spent a great deal of time in his first book on the irreversible perils of sea pollution.
The point made contra my concern was that he’s now embarked on a mission, spreading the message about the dangers of global warming, and that speaking publicly about the spill would be off message. I noted that this is true.
But, on the subject of whether or not Gore is in the race, his avoidance of discussion of the Lebanon spill is an indicator that he has not ruled out running.
In some way, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. This trial is going along too smoothly which bothers me for some reason. All the pieces aren’t just quite into place yet, but I can’t figure out from which side. My common sense tell me that Fitz has it all sown up in the bag and has seveal aces up his sleeve, but then my gut instinct keeps telling me that Cheney is going to do something to railroad this trial. I cannot see him taking the stand or allow himself to be questioned. Something just seems put of place and I can’t put my finger on it.
I tend to look down the road at things. My concern is of the US Attorneys that are being replaced for no apparent reason by Bush’s political hacks (thanks Arlen). There is a reason they are being replaced and it’s not what we are being told. The Justice Dept released an article today that says this is coming from the White House, not them. I am just glad that Fitz started this trial when he did. If he does in fact have other sealed indictments still under wraps, what becomes of those indictments if, GOD FORBID, he joins the ranks of those recently dismissed US attorneys? Wonder what cases the other fired US attorneys had pending against this administration? Or, better yet, is the dismissal of other US attorneys a message to Fitz from the White House? Fitz must have something very detramental against this administration. Its the only thing that makes sense.
Not trying to be a negative Nelly here, but the way this trial is progressing so far, just seems too good to be true. I would like nothing more than to see the whole damn administration indicted.
lily @ 119
IANAL, but I think the answer is no for the following reasons:
1. Deadeye was on the Defense witness list, but not on the Prosecution’s.
2. The Prosecution would much rather have Deadeye on the Defense witness list ’cause then the Prosecution can seriously cross-examine him. If called as a Prosecution witness, they are limited in just how hard they can be on him unless he is declared a “Hostile Witness”.
In either event, I’m betting that Deadeye will not make it to the stand. He’s got waaaaayyyy too much to hide, and there ain’t much room to hide it on the stand.
HotFlash @ 122
Anyone know if there’s a line on this in Vegas?
I love the Honda Rube, but wonder how it plays in the States. On a recent trip overseas, my kids were amazed at the sophistication and cleverness of the tv ads.
Most of the ads here are so terribly awfully pitifully dumb. I guess the Superbowl ads are the exception. Why is that?
Adie @ 95
;0)
RevDeb @ 112
I’m giving it serious consideration. I guess I should decide soon so I can sign up before all the hotel rooms are gone. I have to check with some people I know about rooming together — I don’t really want to pay $149 a night for three nights. It would just make the whole trip too expensive for me right now.
PS – the 4th Hannibal Lecter book and film are out – book is so bad i’m wondering if someone else wrote it. Do not waste your time or money.
Stephen Parrish–What does Scooter do for an encore after the jury hears his Grand Jury testimony? He spins as much confusion as he can, hoping to plant reasonable doubt. He’ll most likely lose that bet, but there’s no doubt he loses if he doesn’t testify.
For someone like Libby, even a short prison sentence would be a nightmare. He can’t count on anyone saving him after prison. He’ll sing and deal. Next indictment?
Rooming is definitely the thing to do. We should set up a match-making service on this.
lily @
120
Almost certainly not, for reasons posted in a comment on a previous thread. What advantages do you see in calling him as a witness for the prosecution?
SharonRB @ 135
Reserve now. There’s a 48 hour cancellation policy so you can change your mind much later on. Last year we found roommates through the threads here—at least some of us did.
Well, this puppy has to go to work tomorrow – (Thank God i’m employed)
RevDeb @
113
My mom’s 89th birthday – August 5. We’re going to PARTY! But, if Diane Benson gives me permission next month, I’m going to help raise $ for her to attend. She’s developed a speech and written material since the election on women of color in American politics.
ET
What a disappointment. Was hoping to meet you face to face.
Dana @ 139
A deal is quite conceivable.
I’m probably too rad to go to YearlyKos.
Kathryn in MA @ 142
Me too…although I’ve been thinking I ought to be thanking Beelzebub, lately. (*sniff*)
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 144
That seems to be the way Fitz usually works. He convicts the lower down perps then flips them and works his way up.
RevDeb @ 141
That’s kind of what I figured I’d do. Get a room myself, and once I find roomies, I or they can cancel our hotel reservations. I also hate to get the $175 convention fee on my credit card right now. I’d like to pay a few things off before I charge that. Can I make the hotel reservations without the convention reservations now?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 145
too rad?????
ET – have Diane get in touch with the YKOS folks soon so she has a slot reserved .. they book up the schedule fast.
and remember all, there are tons of hotels in Chicago so look around if the $149 is too steep … it would be for me.
ifthethunderdontgetya @ 147
Yeah, me, too. Unfortunately, hubby has been out of work for almost four years.
SharonRB,
Go to the YKos web site and try. Nothing to lose.
RevDeb @ 152
Even my mostly liberal Demo family calls me a radical. Some even call me an SDS type.
You should be able to reserve direct with the hotel if you tell them it’s for YKOS and you want the discount (but check what rate they are quoting – I’ve sometimes found lower rates for hotels where I’m at a conference than the conf. rate)
and Ok Kiddo … if I’m not too rad, then neither are you!
Thanks, RevDev. I’m signed up on the YearlyKos site and get the e-mail updates. I’ll see what I can do. I also have a friend in Chicago I may be able to stay with, but logistics are just so much easier if I stay at the convention hotel.
OK Kiddo … SDS was pretty smart!
RevDeb @ 152
heeheeheeheehee- cough, splutter,…. ahem
guess that makes you one of a very select group
……{[( ;-> )]}……
{{{{{{Peace everyone}}}}}}
Stephen Parrish, CPA says:#142
Almost certainly not, for reasons posted in a comment on a previous thread. What advantages do you see in calling him as a witness for the prosecution?
I was not sure, I guess I was just curious if Fitz would benefit from it. Sounds as though you and maddog have answered my Q . Thanks!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 153
You’d fit right in.
RevDeb @
146
O, Ye of little faith. I plan on travelling more after our son graduates from HS this May. I especially like visiting old Unitarian churches. Like this one, for instance:
http://www.unitarian.org.uk/ldpa/newingtongreen/
Siun @ 159
i can hear the goons leafing thru their archives for that one, heh.
p.lukasiak @ 22
Hmmm! You mean that he could ask half the State Dept. and a good number of others “Did you know who Joe Wilson was before his op-ed on Niger?” Wells: “An Ambassador?…Thank you! No more questions.”
Fitz: “You knew that Joe Wilson was an Ambassador before his op-ed piece, right.” “Yes” “Did you know that he was the one sent to Iraq?” “No”
“Fitz: “Did you know he was Charges D’Affaires to Iraq in the Gulf War?” “Yes”
Fitz: “Good memory.”
Siun @ 153
I suppose I’d better do that. It is frustrating. I don’t want to push ANYONE into staying in politics, but…. she’s good.
SharonRB @ 137
I am thinkging about it, too, I’d really like to go but not sure. A roomie’d be a big help. , but I can’t commit until later, I have to work around others’ sched. We need a Y2Kos roomie blog.
I think it’s important to get out and meet folks though. Mr HF and I went to a local meet-up of The Next Agenda folks. One of the bloggers ther, ThorHeyerdahl, is a marketing type. He was telling me about how making an emotional investment => commitment and loyalty. I think we are going to need a lot of that stuff over the next few years. I see that the YKos folks, the Ned folks, people who have made a pilgrimage, are stronger in the fight.
Ed*ard Teller @ 144
Prediction: If Diane comes she’ll get a hero’s welcome.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 156
SDS? Boy that takes me back – I was at Berkeley in late 60’s and most of my friends thought the SDS folks were too moderate.
lily @ 161
Another reason that Fitz wouldn’t have Deadeye on his witness list is the notion that Deadeye himself is one of Fitz’s main suspects.
Being a major suspect in the Plame Betrayal probably ain’t endeared ol’ Deadeye to Fitz. *g*
Ed*ard Teller @ 160
That’s a little far afield for me. If you make it to the east coast, let me know. Then again, there will be lots of us in PDX in June.
All this talk about Nader… I swear, he just comes out every now and then to feel popular again.
The guy we need to start talking up and convincing to run as a 3rd party candidate is Ross Perot. He can take away the votes from the fiscal conservatives.
Plus, you know you’ve missed seeing all of those sexy pie charts about the deficit.
gotta go guys. Have a good rest tonite, & we’ll joinup in the lurkin’booth together on the ‘morrow
FITZMAS!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 155
You could go in disguise. I’d recommend a Stihl Chainsaw hat.
Uh, what’s PDX? My wife and I are gong to Ashland (Coriolanus! – not the play) in May.
perris @ 47
You DON’T know IF he hasn’t been indicted.
My bet is that if Fitz doesn’t call him (i.e. didn’t need his testimony) then he is either the subject of a sealed indictment…or that he will issue one right after this trial.
Yeah, I think it’s time for me to call it a night, too, and try to get to bed a little early. There’s nothing on TV because of the Stupid Bowl — no one wanted to compete against it, so my regular fare isn’t on. See you all on the liveblog tomorrow.
Hot Flash,
You are so right. Those of us who went to Vegas and got to know one another forged quite a bond and it most certainly strengthened our resolve. Don’t know that I would have worked so hard for Ned if I hadn’t gone to YKos. Now I’m hooked.
LandOfTheFree @ 170
Fuck the pie charts. The radical right needs to rally around the third-party campaign of Judge Roy Moore. That’s the guy who can return the Republican Party to the obscurity they so richly deserve….
Could that sealed indictment be against Cheney for knowingly outing a covert CIA agent? If Fitz has Rove’s testimony and flips Libby with a long sentence, it could work out that way.
OT – But just barely – was reading CNN story about Molly Ivins’ memorial service and saw this:
She will be missed.
Ed*ard Teller @ 172
Portland OR (PDX is the airport code and most folks from Portland use that as shorthand.)
Ed*ard Teller @ 132
Do we know for a fact that he didn’t address the Lebanon oil spill? Or might it be that the media did not cover what he had to say?
I can’t imagine why he would “avoid” discussing it – he hardly shirks from being controversial when it comes to the environment.
Kathryn in MA @ 125
What Kathryn said!
Bravo Jane! Take care of yourself. More imprtant than scooter and the rest of the administration scum.
RevDeb @ 113
I registered. Can’t wait to meet my fellow FDLers.
This is all way over my head, I’ll defer the predictions to those who know best. I’m glad to see Jane made it safe and sound.
Maybe Libby can call in a favor from his old pal Marc Rich. Birds of a feather.
Chitown may still be in mourning this summer given the bears loss … oh dear
I can’t imagine what the grounds would be for an appeal. Walton has been scrupulously fair, and Fitz has been by-the-book.
For me, the biggest “tell” about Libby’s defense was when his lawyers tried to claim that playing his grand jury testimony would be prejudicial. Loved it when Fitz agreed but pointed out that it was “not unfairly prejudicial.” That’s prosecutorial snark for you!
Adie @ 162
they’re searching threat assessments for “smart shampoos”
Siun @ 189
Nah, Bear fans know when they have lost to a better team, I do!
Ed*ard Teller @ 175
ET! So glad you will get to see Coriolanus (I assume that you will!) That would be great. I wish he was still dropping by FDL. What a sweetheart, and what a talent. I assume you still have his contact info. If not, please email. And, WHEN you get to meet him, give him a huge hug from VG.
Andrew @
188
I thought Rich was just a criminal. I didn’t know he had leaked the identity of a CIA undercover operative too….
Is that what you were implying?
petedownunder @ 179
There’s a long, long list of anecdotes from Molly’s friends and acquaintances over the years on the Texas Observer site. Funny stories, and some peeks into her character.
The stories of her trying not to adapt to the rules of The New York Times make it sound a little as if The Christian Science Monitor had hired Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
So, far, the one’s that had me chuckling for days is Mark Russell’s attempts to figure out why what Molly said before the Wichita Chamber of Commerce caused so much consternation even months later.
Jane, I’m so glad you made it safely. I pray that Libby will testify, but I doubt it…
Defense will rest without calling Cheney. The Big Dick promised them he’d have his sockpuppet give Libby-san a pardon.
Here’s a prediction — the defense rests without calling anyone to the stand; Wells thinks he can, just in his closing arguments, throw around enough memory silliness, relying on the supposed forgetfulness of prosecution witnesses. This strategy avoids the terrifying possibility of Fitz-cross, as well, and presumes a post-conviction pardon plan, which I also think is in the bag.
Looking forward to seeing 06YK friends in Chicago and meeting those of you new to YK as well. Hope we have some Presidential contenders soaking in the YK goodness as well!
Margot @ 192
No, I think the reference was to the fact that Libby was Rich’s pardon request lawyer….
petedownunder @ 169
Mario Savio
The steps of Sproul hall
Peoples Park
Telegraph Ave.
We were there. ;0)
Cheney is called, invokes executive privilege and provokes a constitutional crisis with the judicial branch. Meanwhile they bomb Iran and provoke a constitutional crisis with the legislative branch.
We come to find out that the paucity of powers defined for the VP trnslates to carte blanche for Cheney.
Libby walks with a pardon as Bush is impeached.
no YKos for me this year. fooey.
John Amato @ 196
hmmm…. pray why? (okay, I can imagine). But, if Libby doesn’t testify (suicidal I believe Walton said), then I can imagine that Walton’s instructions to the jury will take that into account, and not in a good way.
a PDX on FDX News
I don’t see Bush giving Libby a pardon. Loyalty is a one-way street with Bush.
Politically and humanely, we never left Berkeley.
I don’t buy it that the defense thought that they could cull the jury pool with the specter of Cheney. Tho, that did happen. I think that in an excess of hubris, they thought (hoped?) that the jury would be positively impressed and intimidated by the “importance” of the testimony from such an “important” man in our government. Especially since Libby is the public servant of such an important man, and has had so many other important things to deal with. This was their hope against hope, and it got trashed from the get.
puppethead @ 203
So far. But, James Baker III was never expected to go into the tank for GHWB.
The Texas mafia understands an implicit threat just as well as the other mafia does….
The way this plays out is that Libby gets to stay out of jail while the appeal is prepared. But, the review on a simple perjury trial won’t take that long. Libby may end up looking at jail before Bush leaves. It’s at that point that it becomes serious, not before.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 204
Hasn’t Berkeley prohibited inhumane leaving?
Just went and read that – wonderful. LOL fer sure.
Witney @ 133
Fitz can’t be dismissed…Comey gave him PLENARY POWERS…which means that he acts much like the DOJ. Abu Gonzalez can’t fire him…and there has been a statement by the GAO that Fitz’s investigations cannot be “cut off” financially.
Bush could try to fire him, but that leads to a Constitutional crisis that would give pretty clear reign for Congress to issue the first IMPEACHMENT charge.
BTW…did you know that IMPEACHMENT can even occur after an individual leaves office. It can be done to remove the priveleges and emoulements of that “officer” (e.g. Secret Service protection, office space, franking priveleges, pension, the power to maintain records classification, etc.). Thus even a resignation or the end of a term should not bar impeachment.
In fact, given that Congress should not encourage UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS and high crimes and misdemeanors perhaps Cheney and Bush SHOULD be impeached even if they are out of office. The blemish should be permanent to prevent it ever occurring again.
montag @199,
I had forgotten that. Whack!
Ok. Head clear now.
GEEKS Uber Alles!!
Montag – Nader’s legacy IS George W. Bush
puppethead @ 205
But…But!
You mean they
Hey! I guess that means that Libby was asked by
the Pres.and accepted what was going to happen to him!Sadly, I don’t think Scooter testifies. He takes the sword.
But then again, he whined to Cheney about Rove being shielded. So maybe Irving is a ratfink!
FRom the Brad Blog on your favorite faux White Correspondent Jeff Gannon
http://www.bradblog.com/
Oklahoma kiddo @
200
I missed Mario by a year, but was there for all the rest. 1966-1973. Seems like a long time ago. We knew how to protest in those days…
cinnamonape @
215
Hey! I guess that means that Libby was asked by
the Pres.and accepted what was going to happen to him!Sadly, I don’t think Scooter testifies. He takes the sword.
But then again, he whined to Cheney about Rove being shielded. So maybe Irving is a ratfink!
Scooter can whine to Dick, that’s in the Family. But not to Fitz, who is definitely *not* Family!
would sacrifice the guy
the Pres.that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinderHow the heck did this survive the purge?
See Jane go. See Pach and Swopa go too.
See Jane, Pach and Swopa wave bye bye to Irving.
Team FDL!! Let’s roll!!
cinnamonape @ 211
cinnamonape – thank you for making me feel better and I will read up on plenary powers. I try to be careful about what I post because I don’t won’t to say anything which dismisses me as an idiot, but sometimes, I just have to sound off and hope that reasonable people like you will prevail. I have so much faith in Fitz and that justice is not blind. This trial is so much more about than what S Libby said to the GJ. Its what has changed all of our lives in some way, shape or form. thanks again.
OffT: Big girl clears the Golden Gate Bridge with 27 feet to spare!
TeddySanFran @ 219
Wow! Did you see it in person?
*xyz @ 212
Sorry, but, you weren’t paying attention.
It’s not Nader’s fault. The Constitution gave him the right to run. His ego was no bigger than that of anyone else who ran.
And, Bush stole it. Period. If you want to blame the results on anyone, at least blame it on those truly responsible. Stop trying to find a scapegoat for Gore’s obvious mistakes, the prejudices of the press, the skulduggery of Bush’s brother and his minions, the person the Democrats trusted, unfortunately, to design the butterfly ballot and the outright willingness of the Supreme Court to throw a fuckin’ election.
The fact is that the things Nader was running on are things that have harmed this country and will harm this country further if they’re not fixed.
Don’t blame the man for running on that. Democrats in this country have run on much less and won, and still didn’t deliver.
Scapegoating is something the right does very well (watch them eating their own right now, on the Legislative Discovery Channel), so I would expect Democrats to work hard to catch up….
For the “I can’t see how he won’t be pardoned” crowd:
1. Can you think of ANYONE who’s gotten support from Bush after they’re no longer useful to him? Now think about how he treated Katherine Harris. If you were Libby, would you be banking on a pardon?
2. He has a multimillion dollar defense fund. Those donors ponied up because they thought they had to. Some of them HAD to have asked, “Why can’t Bush just pardon the guy?” They had to have been given a good enough reason for them to take out their checkbooks.
3. Fitz still has a grand jury. If Libby gets a pardon, he will immediately be hit with another subpoena. The pardon means that he can’t take the Fifth when he’s asked, “Were you, in fact, totally guilty of all of the things you were originally charged with and pardoned for?”
4. There’s still a civil suit lurking out there. They’re banking on their belief that they’re going to be able to quash it, but a pardon makes that less likely, since it’s going to use up a lot of political captial. It also means that Libby could be compelled to testify in that suit.
5. The Senate still hasn’t released its report on whether Bush twisted the intelligence on Iraq. It’s going to be an ugly report. A pardon, especially before that report is issued, means that Libby could (and would) be subpoeneaed by Congress. And again, he wouldn’t be able to invoke the Fifth if they start by questioning him about whether or not he’s guilty to begin with.
I just don’t see it happening. A pardon would be an admission of a mistake by the Bush Administration. They don’t admit mistakes. I just don’t see it happening.
McCain: War detractors offer no ideas
I’ll give you an idea you dumb f’head. Pull out!
montag @ 208
My gut is that if when Libby is convicted Walton will order him immediately into custody.
Frank Probst @ 222
That’s right, they don’t admit mistakes. But, none of them, as of yet, have their necks in the noose….
One can get very magnanimous if the choice for Libby is between his turning state’s witness on their asses in time for action, or giving him a pardon at a time that usually precludes further investigation.
if scooter gets convicted, i predict he stays free pending appeals and gets pardoned Christmas 2008.
Thank you, Frank. I totally agree that a pardon is unlikely for all the reasons you cite. This trial is delivering more than I thought it would.
I figger that Cheney’ll be called but won’t show because he will have “other priorities.”
puppethead @
205
HAH! You noticed. bygeorge, I do believe you’ve got something there!
Team FDL, make sure you get your rest, Jane esp, and we’ll be here tomorrow morning for coffee and blogrolls.
“Night guys.
Just back from shopping and errands. Abot to be EPU’d, I’m sure:
1) I’ve done every check short of Lexus/Nexus and can find no statement by Gore on the July 2006 Lebanon spill. I’ve even gone through all his press conferences from the last week of July to the first week of November.
2) Nader was a pain in the butt and a distraction in 2000, but Gore won Florida and the election. period
3) OK Kiddo is not too radical for me, or for YK 07!
4) What happens in Portland in June? Is it something involving fdl or Blue America?
Fitz is doing a great job.
Here’s a link on the topic of the powers he was given in his appointment letter.
The whole issue is rather arcane…but Comey apparently arranged it so that Fitzgerald could not be removed unless a case of criminal negligence could be shown.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Co…..cutor.html
montag- don’t know how much you have been able to read the trial posts, but would like your opinion on my thoughts above, here.
-i predict he is convicted
-then he appeals
-then he does a martha stewart and decides to go do his few months in jail so he can get on with his life
-exits jail with a lovely poncho
-starts a tv show on fox news
blue e @ 236
“Sunday with Scooter”
montag @ 223
I agree with montag. Bush stole two elections. You can’t blame Ohio on Nader.
Nader is a progressive who will never win an election. But he doesn’t triangulate. I hate triangulation.
If Libby is convicted the WH would have a very difficult time in pardoning him. Politically the Republican Party would suffer for it so I believe they will put pressure on Bush not to do so. It would further undermine whatever might be left of Rove’s grand dream of an everlasting(at least until the rapture) Republican majority in Washington. It would not play well with the public and the Democratic Party would have a field day with it. No matter what happens to Libby, convicted or not, the Republicans are screwed.
Just a quick note to let all the firepups know I’m still alive. Been incredibly busy. Good to know such dedicated people, regular Joes like Pach and Swopa and Marcy and Jane and Christy, along with all the outstanding cadre of commenters at fdl and beyond have front row seats to the train wreck of the Bush junta version of foreign policy, and how they deal with their detractors.
This has never been about Joe Wilson’s ability to stop their war. That was not to be stopped. This was about petty sandbox bullying by a bunch of arrogant punks.
And what would the case for appeal conceivably be?
Montag –
If Nader had dropped out of the race, or simply limited his campaigning to non-swing states, Gore would have won – regardless of Bush’s efforts to cheat. I know that it was Nader’s right to run, and that he represented certain progressive values better than Gore. But these facts have no bearing on my point. Nader stayed in the race and campaigned in Florida.
Nader’s single most significant contribution (if you want to call it that) will always remain his role in getting Bush elected. Nader’s legacy is Bush.
Nader’s supporters in 2000 should admit this, acknowledge their own responsibility, and work to prevent something similar from ever happening again.
WaPo dissects Edwards’ MTP appearance today.
Dana @ 241
every single thing Walton did or did not do.
If Cheney is called, I can’t see him avoiding testifying. If Jones v Clinton (Remember that one?) showed that a sitting President could be sued in civil court, I can’t imagine that a Vice-President can’t voluntarily testify for one of the most honest men he’s ever known. He may try to invoke all kinds of privileges at trial. He may have better luck there. But it’s going to look awful. And Fitz is a patient man who doesn’t lose a lot of legal battles. I’ll add my name to the chorus: There’s no way Cheney takes the stand.
Jane, Glad to hear you made it to Plame House.
Looking forward to your impressions of the court tomorro.
I was reviewing the earliest Plamegate post from the compliation Christy began this past week.
It is impressive to realize you Jane were already all over this issue back in February of 2005.
All your commenters were equally right on target (all TWO of them!). As the 230 some odd commenter on this current post, it is obvious your site has developed quite a following in 2 years since.
I’ve enclosed the comments section below from your 2/9/05 Gannongate post:
Wow, great blog – I actually learned something. And of course, my first question is, “Is any of this true?” I looked thru some of the links and was impressed with your reseach and other offerings. I just may come back, better yet, I should get the word out on you – very good!!
blaisealan | Homepage | 02.09.05 – 9:52 am | #
——————————————————————————–
What gets me about Gannongate is how little professional pride the White House reporters take in their occupation. The guy is a fake and an embarrassment to them, tells the world that any hustler can be a White House reporter, and not a peep from these bloated biographies.
PSoTD | Homepage | 02.10.05 – 6:14 am | #
Future adv. on FOX
unIrving Sings Prison Folk Songs with the Slim Whitman Orchestra… CDs available for 39.99
This offer not available in stores..
ET,
PDX in June
TeddySanFran @
221
Whew! (wipes brow)… she IS a big girl! (and I’m very glad I never became a pilot… too nerve-wracking!)
*xyz @ 242
thank you for that.
additionally, the Al Gore we are clamoring for now (Gore v2.0) is not the Al Gore of 2000, who was smothered in “play not to lose” strategy nurtured by wishy-washy consultants. Al Gore (v1.0) deserves his share of blame for not shaking them off and speaking from the heart, as he does now.
Upon listening to his speech from a year ago it would be difficult to think otherwise.
Accept no substitutes.
About the Nader vote and what all it did or didn’t do to the election, don’t overlook that he got a huge segment of Libertarian conservatives who would have otherwise voted straight Repub ticket.
While I’m ranting, can I just bitch about the “There have been no bombshells” talking point? The former White House press secretary invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify until he had an immunity agreement. I know it’s not a semen-streaked dress or anything, but it’s still a pretty big deal. If this were a bank robbery, that’s the equivalent of the getaway driver cutting a deal.
I saw Gore on the local news this week; he was speaking in Silicon Valley about The Warming. The clips they showed were more like Gore1.0 — very stiff, very suited, very uptight. I was not encouraged.
Frank Probst @ 252
TradMed is rather conveniently overlooking this; I like your analogy!
If you’re right and the “defense” is at quadrille–then pardon time looms just below the horizon … as pere did for Weinberger et al. Like father, like son. Loyalty has its rewards.
Just scrolled up through the comments relating to Bush being the legacy of Nader. The CW is he pulled votes from Gore, giving the election to Bush.
I’m sorry, but I’ve always thought the votes were neither Gore’s, Bush’s or Naders. The votes belong to the people.
I find it difficult to believe if I were Al Gore that I would carry any blame for Nader.
May Democrats run to the right at their peril.
Scooter takes the stand, fakes massive coronary and death with CIA zombie drugs. Joins Ken Lay at the fugitive compound in Paraguay.
piper joe @ 255
See above. From what we know, Scooter can hurt Dick, not W. And W is far less than half the man his father was.
RevDeb,
e-mail coming soon, but don’t wait up…
I still can’t believe Scooter’s wife wouldn’t clunk him in the head with a frying pan and say, “cooperate, you nitwit! whadda you think yer doing?”
and, it may not be Cheney’s choice to testify or not – wouldn’t it be Scooter and his lawyers’ choice?
TeddySanFran @ 253
say it ain’t so….
Bill @ 238
How many votes did Nader get in Florida in 2000? How many votes was Bush able to steal? Could he have stolen 200,000 more?
If Nader had told his supporters in a few key states that they should think rationally and strategically…
rather than commit this country to eight years of what we have gotten…
Let’s face it. The Naderistas didn’t want to compromise their message that the “Democrats were simply the same as Republicans”.
What holds then would surely hold true now. I’m just surprised that there would still be people out there willing to vote for Nader again, at the risk of getting John “Let’s Escalate Even More” McCain elected! I mean the guy has just hired the ad firm of Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potholm (the ones that made the “Swiftboat” Ads and the one that showed Harold Ford with the white bimbo saying “Call Me, Harold”)…as his campaign ad people!
One would think that Nader and his supporters could realize that running for President might actually be the very worst thing for actualizing his message.
In Europe the Greens “horsetrade” with other left and moderate parties in order to move their agenda forward. Nader’s 2000 campaign set EVERY element in the progressive agenda BACK decades.
Gore lost in 2000 for several reasons including a stolen election. But what irritated me about Nader’s justification for his run at the time was that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans and so no difference between Gore and Bush. Painful history has taught us just how wrong that position was.
presque vu @ 258
Fitz didn’t prosecute Ken Lay. If he had, I’d bet he would’ve been at the autopsy. I know that’s what I would have done.
Valley Girl @ 233
Umm, you said, there:
First take: Cheney’s national approval rating has been hovering around 18-20% nationally until just recently. I would guess his approval rating among the average people called for jury duty in DC would be about 2%. So, as you say, the defense did act in a way to cull the jury to their advantage on war issues by using Cheney. They used Cheney as a witness to do that, so, I’d say that was at least part of their strategy.
The hubris belongs to the administration. If Libby hired people with an excess of that particular personality defect, he deserves everything he gets. :)
I think the key to much of this is the indictment itself. The obstruction charge may have been a CYA for Fitzgerald’s people not coming up with a dead-bang on the IIPA issue. The rest is documented. An impartial jury will nail Libby on at least one perjury charge, and I think his lawyers knew that from the time of discovery. Therefore, all that was left was strategy and tactics. If Fitzgerald wraps up on Monday and Tuesday, as I suggested, we’ll know on Wednesday, Thursday at the latest, how Libby’s lawyers will proceed. My guess is that they’re going to be working hard for something to gain a mistrial.
If they call neither Cheney nor Libby, Walton will not be kind to them. I don’t particularly trust Walton, because he’s bent over backwards to protect this administration in the past, but, I would guess, even he has his limits.
What will be interesting to see, if exposed, is what prompted Libby’s lawyers to name Cheney as a defense witness–Libby himself? The lawyers? One thing for sure, it wasn’t Cheney who offered. :)
RevDeb @
113
Had waaaay too much of a blast last year to miss it this time – already registered and have my hotel room.
On my way!
Frank Probst @ 265
That reminds me for some reason of the Stalin era poet who committed suicide. His last words were said to have been: “Comrades, don’t shoot!”
Wells thinks he will seal the deal with Loftus’s testimony and I fear that he is right. She is incredibly compelling.
I bet Paraguay is not looking forward to the arrival of the undead. The price of garlic should go up.
John Gorman @
269
I thought Judge Walton said Loftus couldn’t testify.
Does Libby testify?
NO. Wells has been using smoke and mirrors to cause diffusion and confusion. Maybe it’s worked, but probably not. However, if Libby get’s on the stand, he becomes the focus. There’s no diffusion and no more confusion — and he’s toast. (He’s probably toast anyhow.)
ps Glad that you’re feeling better Jane!
Oilfieldguy –
I’m sure that Nader and Lieberman would both agree that the votes belong to the people. This way of looking at things surely helps the conscience of those candidates who undermine their cause (Nader) or their party (Lieberman).
The fact is that candidates bear a responsibility for their decisions run for office in situations where doing so would be counterproductive to their progressive goals (Nader) or damaging to their party (Lieberman).
The people who vote for such candidates surely share responsibility with such candidates, but they do not absolve them of it. There is plenty of blame for both candidates and voters to share.
Lindy @ 271
Yup. And Walton has said that he won’t allow a faulty memory defense unless Scooter puts his ass on the stand and says he had a faulty memory.
I. Lewis Libby’s first name is Irving. IRVING! IRVING! How do ya like that, IRVING?
montag- despite the obvious of Cheney’s low ratings, I still have a hard time believing that it was a thought-out tactic of the defense to advertise Cheney as a witness in order to cull the jury pool. They’ve done some stuff so far that seems far less clever than that. Then again, I never got very far in learning to play chess.
sonate @ 272
Yes and no. There will be seven hours of his grand jury testimony shown to the jury. It’s going to be hard to walk away from that.
karen allen @
275
Don’t say that so loudly – his friends don’t know he’s Jewish, you know.
I, for one, am looking forward to reading Jane’s observations on Barbara Comstack.
cinnamonape @ 263
I have no doubt of it. One of the few truly annoying events of the antiwar march in DC (second only to going past the freeper counterprotesters) was the time we were marching near the Green contingent, as they chanted “Republicans and Democrats are the same/there’s no difference except the name.”
From the WaPo October 2006 In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember
IIRC, Loftus “forgot” that Fitz had cross examined her before. LMAO.
Walton threw her sorry ass out.
SF Teddy and Punaise too -
Here is a news clip from Gore’s recent speech – he looks tired but very much on his noble game.
http://news.com.com/1606-2-6155980.html
Re-Elect President Al Gore in 2008!
Accept No Substitute
Deeply EPU’ed but c’est la vie.
Going with the memory argument showed from the beginning how weak Libby’s defense was likely to be. Fitzgerald has produced numerous witnessess inside and outside the government who have testified that he was told about Valerie Plame and that he subsequently made use of this information. You can argue that if you were told something doesn’t prove you were listening. But if you make of the information that you were told, the bad memory argument just won’t fly.
As I and others have tried to point out, the scapegoat story is no defense at all. So what if he was made a scapegoat, that is no excuse for lying. What it is if used would be a bid for jury nullification. Given the dynamics we have seen in the courtroom so far, this isn’t forlorn so much as foolhardy.
A third defense is the confuse the issue one. The problem is that Fitzgerald isn’t playing along. The prosecution’s case remains clear. So far the defense has only conveyed the impression that it is the defense that is confused, not to say muddled.
The fourth strategy is as montag pointed out above to kick this puppy into a court of appeals where there is no jury and where it will come down to a battle of the briefs. The best that could be hoped for is a mistrial with Fitzgerald still having the option to retry. In any case, the appeals process is likely to be extended.
Although I am not sure about this, I do think it is at least possible that Scooter may be trying to run the clock out on this one, not so much for himself but for his boss Cheney. Call it the charitable view of what has been otherwise an ungodly mess of a case from the defense’s point of view.
*xyz @ 240
How do you know this? Bush lost, and still won. Why do you think Nader had anything to do with that?
Nader has been scapegoated–exactly what you are doing to him now–to mask a lot of other failures and wrongdoing.
If Nader had asked Gore–or Bush–to drop out to advance his campaign, what would they have said?
Part of the problem here is that we are dominated by two parties, neither of which have been very responsive to the needs of ordinary people, and far too responsive to corporate interests. Nader came along and challenged that–just as he had done in a couple of prior elections–and now, he’s a bad guy because he didn’t cave in to what he considered to be the lesser of two evils, and Bush has turned out to be, post-9/11, a tyrant?
I’m not going to change your mind about this, I know. But, in your quiet moments, you ought to be asking yourself why Nader has been so villified for things he did not do and for which he was not responsible.
Cheney on the witness list. One reason to have him there would be to be able to question prospective jurors about their feelings about Cheney and to ding those who didn’t like him or find him credible.
Valley Girl @ 274
Well, they aren’t getting $800 an hour because they shoot good pool. One has to look at their emphases in jury selection to find a departure point for their strategy.
montag @ 286
Well, that certainly is a “quoteable”: they aren’t getting $800 an hour because they shoot good pool. I think of myself as a cynic, but the fact that I would give them the benefit of the doubt just goes to show that I have miles to go on that account.
libby’s made it clear that if things go south, he’s going to rat out cheney.
if cheney doesn’t help to keep scoot out of the slammer, the vicissitudes of self-preservation may over-ride beltway heroism.
Fitz has got libby over a barrel; he wants cheney–bad.
Neither Cheney nor Libby will testify for the defense. I very much doubt that the defense will call NO witnesses. At the very least, the defense needs to fill up some time so that the grand jury tapes are not as fresh in the minds of the jurors as they would be if the defense called NO witnesses. So look for some defense testimony that is designed to take up some time and shift the focus of the jury away from the tapes and other damaging evidence presented by Team Fitz.
The defense, in raising the memory defense at the beginning with the understanding that Libby probably would not testify, may have been attempting to take advantage of the Constitutional rule which says that the prosecution can not rely on the defendant’s failure to testify at trial to prove the prosecution’s case. Clearly it is a reversable error for Fitz to tell the jury they must convict because Libby did not take the stand. How that rule plays out if Libby refuses to testify after raising the “I was too busy/confused to remember” argument in opening is unclear. Yes, Walton will be pissed, but he will have to be very careful about what he says (and about what he allows Fitz to say) to the jury. Wells may have been taking a calculated gamble that the “LIbby was too busy to remember” seed planted in his opening statement might germinate with at least one juror even without Libby taking the stand. Walton may be pissed, but the real question is what Walton can tell the jury without running afoul of the 5th Amendment.
(Attorneys don’t go out of their way to get the judge mad, but sometimes you gotta do things you believe will get the judge mad in order to properly represent your client. I’ve been yelled at by federal judges on multiple occasions. If you do trial work in the federal courts, it goes with the territory.)
montag @ 284
Scapegoated to mask other failures and wrongdoing? Everyone I’ve heard complain about Nader also complains about underhanded Republican actions, and about Lieberman, and any number of other things. The only people I’ve ever heard claim that the entire thing is being blamed on Nader are people arguing that it’s wrong to blame it on Nader.
It’s no more accurate to say that it’s not Nader’s fault than to say that you could have won a close race with better training and effort, so that ten-pound-weight you had to carry had nothing to do with it.
Valley Girl @ 287
You’re gauging what they might do on the basis of what you think about the whole matter, I think, and how you would approach it all.
Or, perhaps, I am even more cynical about these people than you. :)
But, look at it this way. They’ve had, what, sixteen months to arrange their case. Lots of legal talent putting ideas into that–not just Wells and Jeffress, but two firms’ worth–and they hit discovery and find that Fitzgerald has their client dead nuts on at least one charge. If they’re smart, they work out two or three ways to proceed with the case, layer upon layer upon layer, and it all depends upon getting a jury they can work. That’s where it starts.
We haven’t seen their defense yet. It’s yet to come. We’ve seen some cross-examination that did Libby no favors, and that may color impressions of what’s yet to come. They tried the memory expert routine, and that was a bust. They tried the CIPA routine to show that Libby was too busy to notice that he was breaking the law, and so far, um, not so good.
But, one thing I guarantee, you ain’t seen nothing yet. :)
montag- just a quick note to say I read above. Thanks as ever.
One of Libby’s primary missions, IMHO, is to Run the Trial Aground on the De-classification issue, which would almost certainly provoke the Unitary Executive Argument.
The only way I see Cheney testifying is if it’s his testimony that provokes the Constitutional Crisis – because short of Bush being able to ‘wave his magic wand’ and declare that wrong is right, the Truth – however slowly it may unfold – will eventually convict BushCo.
Without the big showdown, we are in for days and days of Scooter talking real slow and saying ‘he doesn’t remember’ – a lot, as he trolls for a reversible point.
People, get real.
Libby is falling on the sword to protect
Cheney, who knows the truth
about the real leaker : Barney.
karen allen @
275
Proves the poor memory that he has. When asked, he says…”My name is Scooter”…but eventually he recalls it’s “Irving”. He’s worked real hard to forget some things, it seems!
Redshift @
290
I wonder if Ned Lamont would have won on Connecticut if Liebermann hadn’t thrown in his lot as an “Independant”?
I’m sure that he didn’t siphon away any votes from Lamont. Those that voted for him were probably all Libertarians and disenchanted voters that wouldn’t have voted anyways.
;-)
montag:
> It’s not Nader’s fault.
You may well believe that but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Francis Urquhart
Blub @
27
This was the plan all along, I’ll bet: Bust the budget with Billions for War in order to starve the “social program” budget that the Repugs hate so much. Bush’s “balanced budget” means more for “guns,” less for “butter.” He’s using the Dems talk about balanced budgets against them, daring them to cut war costs, to force them into cutting social programs.
Bob in HI
Witney @
133
They can’t do it.
Fitz’s position is unusually secure. I just hope he uses it to full advantage.
Bob in HI
Dear sweet, patient, long-suffering mods,
Sincere apologies for my #126 last night!
Thanx for fixing it up so the thot’s still there, & the toobz are cooled off.
Weak moment there – promise to be good from now on. ;->
RAH RAH — LADY JANE IS IN THE HOUSE. GOOD ON YOU, SWEET PERSON. GLAD YOU’RE UP. Take everything with caution. Be pampered. Let yourself be spoilt rotten. Take care of yourself — so you can take care of others. So many are in need. We need you here. And here you are. // Best //