Fitz

Hey where is everybody?

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.

Jane!
Christy!
Swopa!
Marcy!
And Pach too…!!!

FITZ

SWOPA

Psst. give us an explicit heads-up on lunch break, ok?

New visitors to FDL live-blog of Libby Trial, please read

The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Swopa is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.

Peterr wrote:

A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. .

FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.

Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:

1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a short snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.

2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.

3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.

4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.

5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.

6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.

Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.

If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.

That’s also how Swopa makes his updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. Have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 15 minutes to update, you can wait 15 minutes to reload.

And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, shekels, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket at the bottom of the post. That’s what makes this all possible.

Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.

Thanx

Lunch breaks always come at 12:30 or thereabouts. We went a little over yesterday just to finish up the Libby grand jury tapes.

Just what in the Sam Hill is Walton doing coming into court saying he talked to other judges?
IAAL from Canada but this strikes me as nuts and immediate grounds for a mistrial no?

Canadian and Confused?

sorry, I have to repost this cuz it’s so puhrty;

excuse me, please pay special attention to the emboldened which I have conveniently provided for your cheney pleasure;

I had talked to Judith Miller about the NIE at the president’s, you know, at, at the president’s approval relayed to me through the vice president, and I did not tell Mr. Hadley at that time.

THERE IT IS.

now, we have absolute proof provided by libby himself, cheney released classified information, libby has ADMITTED he DID NOT get a declassified status through the president, HE GOT IT THROUGH CHENEY WHO MADE BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DID IT.

he used the document he KNEW was classified and the WORD of the vice president that the PRESIDENT declassified the docuement

bing

can you say “GOTCHA”?

Glad you’re safe, Swopa. We thought you’d all been kidnapped, or vaporized…

seems to me that Fitz is being punished for running such a tight investigation. There was wild speculation because nobody knew anything.

Mickey @ 10

Glad you’re safe, Swopa. We thought you’d all been kidnapped, or vaporized…

You mean shot in the face, I think.

Swopa:

You’re really doing a terrific job! Thank you.

Canadianhoser @ 8

Just what in the Sam Hill is Walton doing coming into court saying he talked to other judges?
IAAL from Canada but this strikes me as nuts and immediate grounds for a mistrial no?

Canadian and Confused?

certainly not. Walton consulted with other judges on a question of law and precedent. Perfectly acceptable.

Impeachment. The more I hear that word, the better I feel.

They taught me in law school that you can’t use extrinsic evidence to impeach on a collateral matter. I have no clue how this latest Imus tape gets in; they’ve manufactured a side issue by asking Russert if he was elated and now they want to drag in outside evidence to impeach him. Someone who knows more than me about practicing law needs to explain this.

MochDem @3:

“The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared . . .”

I’ve believed that during this whole uproar. My first thought was that Cheney was mad as hell and then panicked when someone DARED to speak out about the whole Niger/yellowcake crap. They probably would have gotten away with all of it had Cheney’s ego and temper not gotten the better of him when challenged by a mere mortal. When Darth Dick started trying to swiftboat Wilson, they got sloppy.

I couldn’t believe the “Asked and answered” from the Judge this morning.

I have hear it used occasionally by attorneys and I even used it once on the witness stand – and got away with it!! But to hear it from a judge is not a good thing for the attorney doing the badgering questioning.

Walton is bending over backwards to the defense, but even his patience may have a limit.

Steve @ 15

They taught me in law school that you can’t use extrinsic evidence to impeach on a collateral matter. I have no clue how this latest Imus tape gets in; they’ve manufactured a side issue by asking Russert if he was elated and now they want to drag in outside evidence to impeach him. Someone who knows more than me about practicing law needs to explain this.

Maybe they manufactured it because there is something else in the tape they want the jury to see!

Well I’ll be a pig in a poke! Baker Botts was using the Google on Feb. 5th with these search words:

imus russert libby “christmas morning”

and it was “christmas eve” all along, darn!

perris @ 9

sorry, I have to repost this cuz it’s so puhrty;

excuse me, please pay special attention to the emboldened which I have conveniently provided for your cheney pleasure;

I had talked to Judith Miller about the NIE at the president’s, you know, at, at the president’s approval relayed to me through the vice president, and I did not tell Mr. Hadley at that time.

THERE IT IS.

now, we have absolute proof provided by libby himself, cheney released classified information, libby has ADMITTED he DID NOT get a declassified status through the president, HE GOT IT THROUGH CHENEY WHO MADE BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DID IT.

he used the document he KNEW was classified and the WORD of the vice president that the PRESIDENT declassified the docuement

bing

can you say “GOTCHA”?

I don’t know if this is clear here, but libby admits he did NOT get a declassified statement from the president, AND he admits the president is the person that could have given it to him, OTHERWISE he would have said the VICE president declassified the nie

instead he CLAIMED the he recieved a PRESIDENTIAL statement the document was declassified, but he got that afirmation through the VICE president.

he CANNOT get a presidential status given verbally through the VICE president, that would have to come through documentation endorsed with a presidential seal…he could only get a presidential verbal declassification form the president, the vice president cannot do this.

(the gabbly chat server seems broken (or under attack?) this PM)

perris@21

he CANNOT get a presidential status given verbally through the VICE president, that would have to come through documentation endorsed with a presidential seal…he could only get a presidential verbal declassification form the president, the vice president cannot do this.

is there a law that defines this?

Steve @ 10:51,
Looseheadprop (lawyer) describes this as ” Look! A bright, shiny thing!”.

Here’s the Executive Order that gives the VP authority to declassify information. Was the DCI out of the loop? The DCI can object to declassification if it would out an ‘operative’ and the President makes the final decision. This must be how you get that Medal of Freedom…

…tapping your toes?

In Europe, people gather in various town squares to drink and people-watch.

In the midst of the people-watching, musicians set-up and play.

If you tap your toes, the musician will come over to you at the end of the song with his donation box – it’s considered correct to give for the enjoyment.

We call it the ‘toe-tapping’ tax.

So, if you’re enjoying following the live-blogging of the Libby Trial here at FDL – ie, tapping your toes – please consider ‘giving’ to support the cause by using the ‘donation’ box that can be found at the end of each article.

Thanks, and

Go FDL!

Moch Dem @ 3

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.

This has been obvious to so many of us for so long, it is amazing to see the light bulb go off in Sullivan’s head just now. Okay, is everybody finally waking up here? Sheesh. Still, better late than never.

Peoples’FrontofJudea @
23

perris@21

he CANNOT get a presidential status given verbally through the VICE president, that would have to come through documentation endorsed with a presidential seal…he could only get a presidential verbal declassification form the president, the vice president cannot do this.

is there a law that defines this?

I’m adding two plus two

how can cheney tell skooter the president declassified something with no record of it

if it were verbal skooter would have an obligation to verify

Head toward the light, Andrew. Head for the light…

Mickey @
10

Glad you’re safe, Swopa. We thought you’d all been kidnapped, or vaporized…

I was fine. The site was being pursued by excessive traffic. :)

As much as I do not like it , nor is it fair, Wells is trying to screw Timmeh the same way Timmeh screws so many of his Democratic guests on his show. Priceless!

Mandrake @ 27

Moch Dem @ 3

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.

This has been obvious to so many of us for so long, it is amazing to see the light bulb go off in Sullivan’s head just now. Okay, is everybody finally waking up here? Sheesh. Still, better late than never.

Well, the dots are being conveniently connected here at the trial. Maybe the media will notice it now that Sully has even grokked it.

I don’t think this cross-examination is doing very much for Ted Wells’ and Tim Russert’s future close feelings.

perris@28

tubes full

ItsMe @
25

Here’s the Executive Order that gives the VP authority to declassify information. Was the DCI out of the loop? The DCI can object to declassification if it would out an ‘operative’ and the President makes the final decision. This must be how you get that Medal of Freedom…

my point is libby isn’t claiming cheney declassified the nie, he’s claiming cheney SAID the president did it

he’s also claiming he never found out if the president did it or not, he assumed cheney was telling the truth

this is a classified docuement and libby signed
his secrecy oath…this boggles the mind

Former Fed @
17

I couldn’t believe the “Asked and answered” from the Judge this morning.

[…]But to hear it from a judge is not a good thing for the attorney doing the badgering questioning.

Walton is bending over backwards to the defense, but even his patience may have a limit.

Wells didn’t start off…,er, well, from the git-go. He’s been antagonistic to witnesses and he’s been pushing Walton pretty hard, even to where he’s getting warnings from da judge.

I was speculating earlier (last week?) that this might be a jury nullification strategy: Wells: “The judge and the feds are colluding – they’re all out get my poor client. See, they’re in it together!”

From courtroom commenters this morning, it’s only annoying the jury.

Now, I think he’s desperate, that aint gonna work, he’s grasping at straws, hoping for something ANYTHING that might lead to a mistrial.

And what the heck is going on anyway? Walton said flat out, “no memory defense without defendant on the stand.” Now they’re setting up for not putting him on the stand? What CAN they be thinking?

He adds that he consulted with other judges at lunch, and they shared his opinion that the tape was acceptable to show

So, did Walton pick up their lunch tab? And can the napkin notes be made part of the appeal which draws ever closer?

How often does a judge, say, walk over to the next courtroom for free advice?
-

Anent Perris @ 27 — though you know this I’m sure, I’ll say this for the Peanut Gallery:

Simply declaring the NIE (or the cherrypicked parts thereof) is “declassified” does NOT allow you (or anyone else, including The Almighty Herself) to commit TREASON and “out” a covert agent and to put her entire brassplate op at risk, causing probable death to several and ruining the said covert agent’s usefulness forever. Might be that clobbering Brewster Jennings was a happy twofer justifying the risk of the leak, but in any case they “got their collective tit caught in a wringer” named Fitz.

(/waves at Ambassador Wilson and Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson, two of my heros)

“The Imus Exception”?

Just how big is that corpse’s head swelling at this point? I don’t watch or listen to those maroons anymore but I can just imagine this being a topic of converstion for years. He’s still doing Nixon bits…

Jane on Thom Hartman right now (Air America Phoenix)
http://www.1480kphx.com/

Hayduke @ 40

Jane on Thom Hartman right now (Air America Phoenix)
http://www.1480kphx.com/

thom harman is a friggin genous and if you’ve never heard him you must listen

I want a sound clip of jane on his show

perris @ 35

ItsMe @
25

Here’s the Executive Order that gives the VP authority to declassify information. Was the DCI out of the loop? The DCI can object to declassification if it would out an ‘operative’ and the President makes the final decision. This must be how you get that Medal of Freedom…

my point is libby isn’t claiming cheney declassified the nie, he’s claiming cheney SAID the president did it

he’s also claiming he never found out if the president did it or not, he assumed cheney was telling the truth

this is a classified docuement and libby signed
his secrecy oath…this boggles the mind

perris

Understand the whole NIE story is just one giant lie. To believe it, you’d have to believe that:

1) Libby was so cautious he got “presidential authorization” to leak the NIE to Judy, after having leaked it to Sanger and Woodward without even knowing whether it was declassified or not
2) That they would use presidential declassifiaction with Judy Miller, to whom they had already leaked 3 out of 4 main supports for the uranium claim early in the case for war
3) That he leaked something to Judy as an exclusive–in a hotel, offsite, using the attribution “Hill staffer”–that he leaked previously in his office, via Wolfie, and with his normal SAO attribution

In other words, it wasn’t the NIE he was talking to about. It was something else, much more sensitive than a silly little NIE (which was already being declassified anyway).

SO it doesn’t really pay to get hung up on Libby’s lie, when the truth lies just behind that.

What is Wells up to with this latest line of questioning? He seems to be getting the better of Timmeh.

Re Hayduke @ 39 — dangitall, I have a Mac and VLC locked & loaded, but still no dice… anyone got any suggestions?

Swopa, you utterly rock! You’ve got me on the edge of my seat, trying hard to find other things to do so I don’t hit refresh too often.

Can you see Libby? How has he been reacting to Timmeh’s testimony?

Quentin at 37 — It’s pretty common, actually, for both lawyers and judges to consult one another on matters of legal interpretation — getting a second opinion, if you will. And for Walton, it would be as easy as walking to the elevator and going to another judge’s office in the federal courthouse, because there are several judges in the building. You pick up the phone and say “This is the precedent I’m looking at with this line of cases, have you dealt with this previously? How did you handle it and why?” They haggle a bit over what each person thinks, and then the judge makes his or her decision. The law is a fluid and interpretive thing, but it is based on fairly linear precedents, so generally experienced trial judges have handled a lot of the same issues over the course of their time on the bench. Often a junior judge will consult a senior one (in terms of both time on the bench and seniority of position) on a controversial matter or a close call. It’s not at all uncommon.

emptywheel @ 42

perris

Understand the whole NIE story is just one giant lie. To believe it, you’d have to believe that:

1) Libby was so cautious he got “presidential authorization” to leak the NIE to Judy, after having leaked it to Sanger and Woodward without even knowing whether it was declassified or not
2) That they would use presidential declassifiaction with Judy Miller, to whom they had already leaked 3 out of 4 main supports for the uranium claim early in the case for war
3) That he leaked something to Judy as an exclusive–in a hotel, offsite, using the attribution “Hill staffer”–that he leaked previously in his office, via Wolfie, and with his normal SAO attribution

In other words, it wasn’t the NIE he was talking to about. It was something else, much more sensitive than a silly little NIE (which was already being declassified anyway).

SO it doesn’t really pay to get hung up on Libby’s lie, when the truth lies just behind that.

good point marcy, and, ya, I am a little hing up on this little thing but I am really pointing out that libby’s very claim is self incriminating;

he’s claiming he accepted a verbal presidential order from someone other then the president

I had talked to Judith Miller about the NIE at the president’s, you know, at, at the president’s approval relayed to me through the vice president, and I did not tell Mr. Hadley at that time.

So, is this becoming the largest ratio of cross-exam vs. direct ever?

I can see that Wells is trying to establish that Russert may have forgotten some things. So what. They have offered no evidence that proves Tim Russert knew of Valerie Plame’s CIA status and identity before he met with Scooter that day. They show no evidence that Russert told Scooter (other than Scooter’s testimony, which he later clarified to state he wasn’t exactly accurate when he said this was the first time he heard of Plame).

If I were a juror, I’d probably have one of those question cards ready. It would say, “did Russert know Plame was in the CIA prior to the viewer complaint converstaion with Libby?” If the answer is “no” from Russert, and the defense cannot find any evidence to prove this is incorrect, I say the past 8 hours of crossexamination was a waste of time.

Peoples’Front:

perris@21

he CANNOT get a presidential status given verbally through the VICE president, that would have to come through documentation endorsed with a presidential seal…he could only get a presidential verbal declassification form the president, the vice president cannot do this.

is there a law that defines this?

Executive order @ 25 was in effect on 3/25/2003

Does this help?

She’s off now. You can stream on the link above though (I bet Thom goes into the Libby trial after the break). Air America Phoenix is awesome. They have their own network (Nova M) and don’t just go with the Standard AA cast, they have a few different ones.
She was great. Wow, Thom Hartman and Jane Hamser. Now THAT is the kind of media this country needs.

For some reason, there seem to be some people unconvinced Cheney would ever make a mistake like this, that he’s just too professional, controlled and sly to let base instincts and frail emotions control his actions.

But there is a lot of good evidence to the contrary, that Cheney is something of a loose capgun (”cannon” is a bit too noble).

If Cheney can carelessly blast his favorite hunting buddy by mistake, he can surely do something just as stupid to protect his WMD lies.

IN terms of weapons for hunting, there’s rifles and scatterguns.

Cheney’s a scattergun (shotgun) kind of guy, the shot he took at Wilson represented a broad pattern and multiple projectiles.

But you have to be close to your target to use a scattergun, a rifle puts you much further away. Cheney took his best shot with his media-management scattergun.

Buy he was too close to the game to get away, before we identified him as “The Shooter”.

Also, just like his hunting trip, Cheney’s scattergun shot intended to “get Wilson” wounded too many journalists, attempting to wound Wilson, just like he blasted his pal in his desperation to down that quail.

Fitz it more the rifleman, high-powered, clearly aimed shots at specific targets.

Deadeye’s no longer the shooter, he’s the real bullseye of this outing investigation.

Executive Orders do not carry the weight of law outside the scope of precedence or letter do they?

This is the equivalent of a signing statement.

Let me get this straight…Wells is trying to make the point that rather than being a White House stooge, Russert hated Cheney, Libby et al, resented being blamed by Libby as the key to the Plame leak – and therefore, Russert is lying simply to get revenge on Libby? This is to say, Wells wants the jury to believe that Russert really was the one to inform Libby that Plame worked for the CIA “as if it were new” and then turned around and lied about it to make sure Libby was indicted by Fitz?

Please tell me the jury thinks this is a big load of b.s.

perris @
28

how can cheney tell skooter the president declassified something with no record of it

if it were verbal skooter would have an obligation to verify

Y’see, the documentation of the declassification is, uh, classified. Sorta like the Secret Service visitor logs these days.
_

I think you’re right, JEP, about Cheney’s general approach to everything. Kind of like when he tried to insult John Edwards (”I’ve never even met him”) when there were several pictures of the two of them together. It’s and instinctive, rabid, hostile attack. Over a lifetime it gets you, well, a permanent sneer that portrays your inner hatefullness.

Okay, so Wells is trying to get Timmeh to admit that the rumor of Libby’s indictment was significant to him, because of his “involvement in the case,” and perhaps build on that to imply that his involvement with Scooter is more significant than he’s admitting? (That is, Scooter’s version rather than Timmeh’s.)

But Timmeh is sticking to the story that it wasn’t especially significant. While that seems odd from a newsman, it could be sensible in the sense that while the entire case was significant, Libby’s indictment wasn’t especially significant because Timmeh thought his testimony was relatively minor and didn’t have anything to do with the indictment. (Which would certainly make sense if he didn’t know about the story Scooter had spun.)

The question still remains, why would the defense ask this? Is it that they have to try to support their story and get Timmeh to admit something, even if there’s nothing in his past testimony that indicates that he will?

Jeebus, he’s trying to get “Fitzmas” into evidence.

ItsMe @ 28

Head toward the light, Andrew. Head for the light…

Ju-heez! Is it possible that some of these guys are truly this naive b/c I always assumed every little thing they printed was coming from a deeply cynical pit of self-serving tripe-mongering. The guy is actually writing as if he has a conscience. Either it’s genuine, or he’s just trying to save face like so many other “news” folks who realize the whole selling the war gig is up.

Bustednuckles @ 24

Steve @ 10:51,
Looseheadprop (lawyer) describes this as ” Look! A bright, shiny thing!”.

In one of her legendary typos, LHP actually wrote, “bright shiny thongs!” – and we had a lot of fun with it!

So the defense wants us to believe that Karl Rove set Libby up, AND his alibi is shot to hell because of a conspiracy between Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, and David Gregory? Good luck with that. The good news is that they pretty much have to call Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory now to make this “defense” work.

Crime in Italy Wells the American public was hoping and praying for any signs of life within the U.S. judicial system, in regard to the outing of Plame, the false intelligence used in the run-up to the war…something…A frogmarch 1 indictment…anything. The republican controlled congress proved that they needs lie about a blowj*b to get serious about an investigation of the false intelligence used in the run-up to the war. Let’s hope that is not the case for the Democrats.

I still am begging some intern to step up to the plate and give Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of these criminals blowj*bs so that they can be impeached

Many Americans have beeb hanging onto threads of faith that Fitzgerald meant what he said “truth is the engine of our judicial system”

We are still hanging on.

Love the reference to the Gore-Dubya decision. Historic events and all…. Ha. Maybe someone on the jury will be reminded of all the crap that went on to install these hoodlums in office.

That’s why Ted “Hot Dog” Wells – Mr. Defense Lawyer of the Year ‘06 gets paid the big bucks -he has been dealt a very poor hand in this case – inherited it from Scooter’s first lawyer – I. Lewis Libby, Esq.

dab from CT @ 54

Let me get this straight…Wells is trying to make the point that rather than being a White House stooge, Russert hated Cheney, Libby et al, resented being blamed by Libby as the key to the Plame leak – and therefore, Russert is lying simply to get revenge on Libby? This is to say, Wells wants the jury to believe that Russert really was the one to inform Libby that Plame worked for the CIA “as if it were new” and then turned around and lied about it to make sure Libby was indicted by Fitz?

Please tell me the jury thinks this is a big load of b.s.

Wells doen’t have to prove anything. All he has to do is plant “reasonable doubt” in the minds of one or two jurors.

This is getting surreal. “Don’t you remember being on TEEVEE?!! It was a HUGE story!!”

Holy moly, Timmy’s on teevee all the freaking time, and has covered hundreds of huge stories.

If I had been on the Today show, sure, I’d have my autographed photos. But this guy’s on the tube constantly.

Maybe dab from CT is right, and it’s all leading up to a charge of revenge against Timmy for getting yelled at on the phone. If so, that’s lame. And I expect Fitz to swat it away like a buzzing fly on redirect.

Pachacutec @ 57

Jeebus, he’s trying to get “Fitzmas” into evidence.

Maybe Jane can take the stand to provide context

emptywheel @
42

perris @ 35

ItsMe @
25

Here’s the Executive Order that gives the VP authority to declassify information. Was the DCI out of the loop? The DCI can object to declassification if it would out an ‘operative’ and the President makes the final decision. This must be how you get that Medal of Freedom…

my point is libby isn’t claiming cheney declassified the nie, he’s claiming cheney SAID the president did it

he’s also claiming he never found out if the president did it or not, he assumed cheney was telling the truth

this is a classified docuement and libby signed
his secrecy oath…this boggles the mind

perris

Understand the whole NIE story is just one giant lie. To believe it, you’d have to believe that:

1) Libby was so cautious he got “presidential authorization” to leak the NIE to Judy, after having leaked it to Sanger and Woodward without even knowing whether it was declassified or not
2) That they would use presidential declassifiaction with Judy Miller, to whom they had already leaked 3 out of 4 main supports for the uranium claim early in the case for war
3) That he leaked something to Judy as an exclusive–in a hotel, offsite, using the attribution “Hill staffer”–that he leaked previously in his office, via Wolfie, and with his normal SAO attribution

In other words, it wasn’t the NIE he was talking to about. It was something else, much more sensitive than a silly little NIE (which was already being declassified anyway).

SO it doesn’t really pay to get hung up on Libby’s lie, when the truth lies just behind that.

lightbulb goes on over head

Did that close the bold?

Russert was being a showman – a carnival huckster – yukking it up with Katy Couric – sensationalizing, dramatizing a story for the rubes – feigning excitement – X-mas eve, 130 years.

I can’t remember. Its just showbiz.

Moch Dem @ 64

Pachacutec @ 57

Jeebus, he’s trying to get “Fitzmas” into evidence.

Maybe Jane can take the stand to provide context

Maybe Jane is the long rumored “surprise witness?”

dab from CT @
53

Let me get this straight…Wells is trying to make the point that rather than being a White House stooge, Russert hated Cheney, Libby et al, resented being blamed by Libby as the key to the Plame leak – and therefore, Russert is lying simply to get revenge on Libby? This is to say, Wells wants the jury to believe that Russert really was the one to inform Libby that Plame worked for the CIA “as if it were new” and then turned around and lied about it to make sure Libby was indicted by Fitz?

Please tell me the jury thinks this is a big load of b.s.

And now he is trying to “prove” that Russert went on the air on NBC and was publicly “gleeful” that Libby was indicted.

So this scenario Wells appears to be presenting:Russert hated Libby, lied to the grand jury to frame Libby for perjury, and then celebrated on the Today show and Imus because Libby was indicted.

I find this laughable.

I think that Cheney is delusional, paranoid and vindictive but I don’t think he has ever been particularly scared by any of this. Like most control freaks, he reacts disproportionately to any real or perceived threat to his control. He never admits fault. It is always everyone else that is wrong. Perhaps Scooter caught a little of this and tried to use it as his defense. *g*

End of pop psychoanalysis.

ItsMe @
25

Here’s the Executive Order that gives the VP authority to declassify information. Was the DCI out of the loop? The DCI can object to declassification if it would out an ‘operative’ and the President makes the final decision. This must be how you get that Medal of Freedom…

Please note the following excerpts from that order:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency

(snip)

Sec. 3.3. Automatic Declassification. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section, on December 31, 2006, all classified records that (1) are more than 25 years old and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified records shall be automatically declassified on December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of its original classification, except as provided in paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section.

(b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a) of this section specific information, the release of which could be expected to:

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method (my emphasis)

(snip)

Although what I’m posting may appear to be off topic, I think that a very careful review of executive order 13292 should reveal that classified information cannot be instantly declassified by anyone. Furthermore, if my interpretation of the aforementioned executive order is correct, it can’t be used to justify revealing – as the executive order states – the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, nor can it be used to reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method.

EPU’d from last thread:

I had a sudden tinfoil hat thought.

Mary Matalin and James Carville are good personal friends of Tim Russert. Almost every year, on the MTP show just before Christmas, Timmeh has the Matalin/Carville duo on the show to do their vaudeville schtick. They’ve often brought the kids. They’re all lovey-dovey, and Timmeh gives the kids presents.

Three things occur to me. One, this may be how Matalin knows that Timmeh hates Tweety. Second, perhaps Matalin thought that her close personal friend Timmeh would be sympathetic to Scooter’s complaint — perhaps she told him to drop her name?

Third, is it possible that what Timmeh was trying to avoid disclosing is that Matalin called him first to tell him that Scooter would be calling, and suggested to him that Scooter would be using the call as an alibi?

My third point is pretty wild speculation, since it assumes that Matalin was in on the outing Plame strategy, and that Matalin told Timmeh about it. Or maybe she just told him, “Scooter needs help with something, he may characterize your call later, and you should just confirm whatever he says about it.”

And now, I will take my tinfoil hat off and put it back in the closet.

Interesting to see how all the anti-Bush squirting over ‘Fitzmas’ is being used by Wells.

Mr.Murder @ 52

Executive Orders do not carry the weight of law outside the scope of precedence or letter do they?

This is the equivalent of a signing statement.

No, it’s not. Signing statements have absolutely no force; they are useful in clarifying the executive branch’s intentions when implementing a law, but cannot change the law. Executive orders have real force; though they also cannot go contrary to law, they deal with procedures and powers that are the province of the executive branch, and can certainly go contrary to previous procedure. In this case, the order delegates a power of the president, which he is allowed to do (within certain limitations.)

However, the thing that it outside the president’s power, and which the order does not say, is that the prez or VP can declassify with no procedure and no notification. They absolutely cannot do that, because the originating agency has to know when information is declassified in order to handle it properly. (In fact, while delegation of the power to classify is pretty clear, whether that conveys the power to declassify is apparently much more murky, a distinction which this administration has repeatedly tried to muddle.)

Slothrop @ 63

Wells doen’t have to prove anything. All he has to do is plant “reasonable doubt” in the minds of one or two jurors.

Did I say he had to prove anything?

However – clearly he is trying to “suggest,” “infer,” whatever verb you want to use, in an attempt to provide the jury with some “plausible” explanation as to why Libby would tell such a blatant lie.

Since Pumpkinhead has been in the public eye for years & years – was clearly BushCo’s “go-to” guy to provide a platform for the admin’s propaganda (by their own admission) – I think this is a pretty ridiculous tack to take (perhaps it would work better if Matthews was sitting in Russert’s place (or how about Keith).

I realize Wells has to work with the hand he has been dealt. But I can also see why members of the jury are rolling their eyes.

Russert has nothing to gain by “lying.” Libby has everything to gain.

Fabulous redirect. Signals to the jury that everything Wells laboriously tried to establish over how many hours? is irrelevant. Ends with TR repeating that Libby’s statements about their conversation weren’t true. The end.

I think I love him a little. Fitz, not Russert.

BTW, “That Mr. Fitzgerald was Santa Claus?” from Wells? Hot tea on the monitor!!!!

Is it just me, or is Fitzgerald handing Welles his barbequed ass?

-

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 73

Although what I’m posting may appear to be off topic, I think that a very careful review of executive order 13292 should reveal that classified information cannot be instantly declassified by anyone. Furthermore, if my interpretation of the aforementioned executive order is correct, it can’t be used to justify revealing – as the executive order states – the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, nor can it be used to reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method.

Those are indeed useful reminders. It is notable that they have not used “insta-declassification” as an escape hatch for the outing, only for the NIE leak. That would tend to argue Marcy’s theory that Cheney will use that as his final defense, unless (hope, hope, hope!) it’s his “You can’t handle the truth!” moment.

I’m curious about Andrea Mitchell’s everybody knew that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA story, and then recants it. I would love to watch her squirm under questioning. But it does make me think there is a lot more to the back story of the press-government relationship.

Nice clean, direct and to the point redirect by Fitz, bringing home the point that what Libby said Russert said in the indictment was not true,and by ignoring Wells’ cross of Russert, Fitz implies to jury that it was meaningless: No need to rehabilitate witness on meaningless cross….

Well, you gotta give that Wells an E for effort! AT least he’s doing his job, and he really did try to break Russert down. And we can thank him for that.

BTW–I am wondering how the jury, who knows very little about the background of all this felt about seeing Big Russ’s Son sitting in the witness box (on crutches no less) being pounded on by a slick defense attny.

Wells you bet your ass there was a frenzy in Oct 2005. The American public had witnessed a generally complacent MSM, crime in Italy (Niger Documents), more false intelligence, the outing of Plame and a Republican controlled congress that needed lies about a blowj*b to investigate instead of investigating the Bush administrations intelligence snowjob that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead. Let’s hope the Democrats are willing to do their job. (Phase II of the SSCI)

The American public was hungry for signs of life in the U.S judicial system. A serious investigation where the individuals responsible for the false intelligence were held accountable. An indictment provided us with a ray of hope … A frog march…accountability……Anything.

I am still begging an intern to step up to the plate and give Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the Bush administration blowj*bs so that the U.s. Congress would find an important enough reason to impeach them.

Until then many of us are clinging to Fitzgeralds words “that truth is the engine of our judicial system”

Does anyone else get the feeling that the reason for all this desperation isn’t that they’re afraid of an indictment on obstruction, or even grounds for impeachment, but of being accused, indicted and convicted for OUTRIGHT TREASON!!

Which explains all the floating versions of the NIE declassification. Because if they outed a CIA agent by releasing an NIE they basically committed a double act of TREASON!

Both of those desperate acts, outing an agent and leaking an NIE represent the worst crimes agqainst government that are on our books.

Mainly because releasing that info and outing an agent, both publicly, constitutes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the second definition of “TREASON”. Plame’s enemies in the MIddle East sure got aided in uncovering who the ran the CIA operation, and her operatives’ lives were immediately put at stake, we may never know what damage this Cheney revengefest did to our entire spook operation in the middle east.

These guys aren’t worried about going to prison for obstruction of justice nearly as much as they are afraid this will all uncover their TREASONOUS crimes, which carry some penalties that make obstruction seem pale in comparison.

litigatormom @ 78

Fabulous redirect. Signals to the jury that everything Wells laboriously tried to establish over how many hours? is irrelevant. Ends with TR repeating that Libby’s statements about their conversation weren’t true. The end.

I second that emotion.

JEP @ 85

Does anyone else get the feeling that the reason for all this desperation isn’t that they’re afraid of an indictment on obstruction, or even grounds for impeachment, but of being accused, indicted and convicted for OUTRIGHT TREASON!!

Which explains all the floating versions of the NIE declassification. Because if they outed a CIA agent by releasing an NIE they basically committed a double act of TREASON!

Both of those desperate acts, outing an agent and leaking an NIE represent the worst crimes agqainst government that are on our books.

Mainly because releasing that info and outing an agent, both publicly, constitutes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the second definition of “TREASON”. Plame’s enemies in the MIddle East sure got aided in uncovering who the ran the CIA operation, and her operatives’ lives were immediately put at stake, we may never know what damage this Cheney revengefest did to our entire spook operation in the middle east.

These guys aren’t worried about going to prison for obstruction of justice nearly as much as they are afraid this will all uncover their TREASONOUS crimes, which carry some penalties that make obstruction seem pale in comparison.

Please please please….

I heard Russert use the same reference to “it’s like Christmas” on election day in November, when he was being interviewed by Meredith Vieira on the Today Show. He was talking about the potential big news of Congress changing hands, and he had an erasable board that he was using to keep up with the various scenarios of which Senate seats were likely to switch. Election day had been anticipated for a while and had finally arrived. Just like the grand jury’s term wrapping up. Anticipated and then finally happened. Libby’s defense team is grasping at straws.

Ouch. Fitz should rest his case right now. That re-direct was devastating.

Spectacular re-direct by Fitz.

It’s interesting to contrast this tight, focused prosecution with the meandering hack job committed by the OJ prosecutors, who got bogged down in trying to document every last second of the timeline. Fitz puts on a simple case and doesn’t get distracted by establishing what time the ice cream melted.

The defense will be fighting a very difficult uphill battle from this point.

politicalpolyanna @ 17

MochDem @3:

“The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared . . .”

I’ve believed that during this whole uproar. My first thought was that Cheney was mad as hell and then panicked when someone DARED to speak out about the whole Niger/yellowcake crap. They probably would have gotten away with all of it had Cheney’s ego and temper not gotten the better of him when challenged by a mere mortal. When Darth Dick started trying to swiftboat Wilson, they got sloppy.

I agree completely!!!

Fitz could do for teaching direct examination what Irving Younger did for cross-exam iin the 70’s and 80’s. A master.

Sigh. wish I could be there to see it live.

Slothrop @ 63

Wells doen’t have to prove anything. All he has to do is plant “reasonable doubt” in the minds of one or two jurors.

Let’s say I have six prosecution witnesses testifying to bad stuff about the defendant, with the following rank-ordered “skepticism/doubt” probability coefficients:

.01 (this person is almost entirely believable)
.05
.10
.25
.50 (really can’t decide about this person)
.66 (relatively dubious witness)

The aggregate probability of ALL of them being wrong, then, is

.01 x .05 x .10 x .25 x.50 x .66

roughly 4 chances in a million.

(Didja know you can do math right in the google entry window? Put .01*.05*.10*.25*.50*.66= in there and hit Enter)

Jurors (people generally) do naive subjective in-the-head probabilistic risk/benefit calculations all the time. Sometimes wildly off the empirical mark, sometimes not so.

For Scooter it’s not “he said/Timmeh said,” it’s “he said/everyone else” said.

Fitz also gets to cross-x all of Wells’ witnesses, and he get the last word in summation.

Libby has deep shit here.

Oh, and may I just say:

We left off at about noon with an accusation by Scooter Libby’s attorney, Ted Wells, that there was “bad blood” between Libby and NBC News, led by Tim Russert.

Could Fox’s scattershot attack on NBC the past couple of weeks be any more transparent? Please, please, can some staffer at Fox leak a GOP memo asking them to support Scooter’s defense strategy?

Steve @ 89

Spectacular re-direct by Fitz.

It’s interesting to contrast this tight, focused prosecution with the meandering hack job committed by the OJ prosecutors, who got bogged down in trying to document every last second of the timeline. Fitz puts on a simple case and doesn’t get distracted by establishing what time the ice cream melted.

The defense will be fighting a very difficult uphill battle from this point.

Heh, they’ve been fighting a losing battle since they took the case. They have absolutely nothing zero zip zilch to work with.

Not to belittle Fitz!’s courtroom skills but the evidence is like sidewinder missiles while Wells is rolling up spitballs.

Would there be any benefit to the defense or Cheney et al if Russert were still on the stand until Monday? In other words, is Wells simply trying to drag this out so Russert can’t spend this entire weekend on Teevee talking about his testimony and the case in general?

JEP @
51

For some reason, there seem to be some people unconvinced Cheney would ever make a mistake like this, that he’s just too professional, controlled and sly to let base instincts and frail emotions control his actions.

simple arrogance trumps all else?

wouldn’t be the 1st time in history…

cathy @ 81

I’m curious about Andrea Mitchell’s everybody knew that Wilson’s wife works at the CIA story, and then recants it. I would love to watch her squirm under questioning. But it does make me think there is a lot more to the back story of the press-government relationship.

Everybody knows there’s a place called Kokomo. I’d like to see her grilled too. Who told you that everybody knows? Then why did you say nobody knows?

Recognizing that the quotations are not verbatim I must say I am shocked by this piece of reporting

Walton says if Russert felt Libby had used him in a lie, a jury might fairly think there was some personal bias (umm, but if he was lied about, then Russert is telling the truth, so isn’t bias irrelevant?). He adds that he consulted with other judges at lunch, and they shared his opinion that the tape was acceptable to show, and then the jury can decide how appropriate the defense argument is.

I am a retired judge and first I would never ask other judges how to handle a question of evidence. Perhaps more important I would never announce to the courtroom that I had consulted with other judges to arrive at a decision. I have lost respect for Judge Walton and I hope he does not screw up this case!

I realize Wells has to work with the hand he has been dealt. But I can also see why members of the jury are rolling their eyes.

I’d wager that Libby (being an attorney) has had a hand in the defense strategy — supporting the point of the adage “the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”

corry342 @ 69

Moch Dem @ 64

Pachacutec @ 57

Jeebus, he’s trying to get “Fitzmas” into evidence.

Maybe Jane can take the stand to provide context

Maybe Jane is the long rumored “surprise witness?”

-uh- Surprise, Jane! *g*

End of story. Libby is toast. No way in hell he walks.

Simple narrative for Fitzpatrick on his close really. I can already hear the hum of the multiple shredders going at the White House after Libby goes down. Actually I can hear them already, must be Rumsfeld’s present office/shredding room.

I guess I now know why the Prosecutor went this route of the simple 5 charges. And why he chose the Libby dude…(cuz Libby lied multiple times and he is closest to the heart of the cancer on this Presidency)

I had my doubts as a far away observer, lol, I actually thought your RICO statutes were too good for this bunch.

They are absolutely ‘hooped’, as they say here in Supernatural B.C.

I hope the Prosecutor keeps his eye on the prize though….that this is all about squashing the Niger concoction, and that trail, leads straight into the White House as being culpable and possibly an actor in that business….

Now I wanna get to see that drama on television for a whole year, Bush’s lawyers vs. Cheney’s lawyers in a death steel cage match.

Mandrake @
27

Moch Dem @ 3

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.

This has been obvious to so many of us for so long, it is amazing to see the light bulb go off in Sullivan’s head just now. Okay, is everybody finally waking up here? Sheesh. Still, better late than never.

andrew sullivan having an epiphany is a good thing but we’ve still got a long way to go before we’re even close to “everyone”.

New thread

S.O.S. in MA @
44

Re Hayduke @ 39 — dangitall, I have a Mac and VLC locked & loaded, but still no dice… anyone got any suggestions?

OSX 10.4.8 needs JRE 1.5 or something like that to get Safari to work properly. It’s an update. Gabbly is Java & if you’re using the older Java Environment, Safari may get confused. I know I was.

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

JEP @
51

For some reason, there seem to be some people unconvinced Cheney would ever make a mistake like this, that he’s just too professional, controlled and sly to let base instincts and frail emotions control his actions.

But there is a lot of good evidence to the contrary, that Cheney is something of a loose capgun (”cannon” is a bit too noble).

If Cheney can carelessly blast his favorite hunting buddy by mistake, he can surely do something just as stupid to protect his WMD lies.

IN terms of weapons for hunting, there’s rifles and scatterguns.

Cheney’s a scattergun (shotgun) kind of guy, the shot he took at Wilson represented a broad pattern and multiple projectiles.

But you have to be close to your target to use a scattergun, a rifle puts you much further away. Cheney took his best shot with his media-management scattergun.

Buy he was too close to the game to get away, before we identified him as “The Shooter”.

Also, just like his hunting trip, Cheney’s scattergun shot intended to “get Wilson” wounded too many journalists, attempting to wound Wilson, just like he blasted his pal in his desperation to down that quail.

Fitz it more the rifleman, high-powered, clearly aimed shots at specific targets.

Deadeye’s no longer the shooter, he’s the real bullseye of this outing investigation.

people who’ve known cheney for years (like scowcroft) have said that he turned into a different person after 2001. i think he just revealed his true self.

“Fitz also gets to cross-x all of Wells’ witnesses, and he get the last word in summation.”

Fitz on cross for the rest of the case. Don’t tell me that there is no god. Unfortunately, the nature of worship in this church dicates that no work shall be accomplished at this desk until the case goes to the jury.

Zig alert!

cal @ 106

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

Just the entire foundation of this preposterous indictment.

And what a brilliant redirect by Fitz on TR.

cal @ 105

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

I rather reasonably doubt it.
_

Kathleen @
61

Crime in Italy Wells the American public was hoping and praying for any signs of life within the U.S. judicial system, in regard to the outing of Plame, the false intelligence used in the run-up to the war…something…A frogmarch 1 indictment…anything. The republican controlled congress proved that they needs lie about a blowj*b to get serious about an investigation of the false intelligence used in the run-up to the war. Let’s hope that is not the case for the Democrats.

I still am begging some intern to step up to the plate and give Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of these criminals blowj*bs so that they can be impeached

Many Americans have beeb hanging onto threads of faith that Fitzgerald meant what he said “truth is the engine of our judicial system”

We are still hanging on.

keep hanging on to those threads, but don’t hold your breath waiting for that intern. ain’t gonna happen ……

BobbyG @
111

cal @ 105

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

I rather reasonably doubt it.
_

A troll has said that he has, but of course the drive-by troll didn’t even attempt to back up his statement with even a bullshit recital, much less with, y’know, PROOF.

Notta Flatlander @
95

Steve @ 89

Spectacular re-direct by Fitz.

It’s interesting to contrast this tight, focused prosecution with the meandering hack job committed by the OJ prosecutors, who got bogged down in trying to document every last second of the timeline. Fitz puts on a simple case and doesn’t get distracted by establishing what time the ice cream melted.

The defense will be fighting a very difficult uphill battle from this point.

Heh, they’ve been fighting a losing battle since they took the case. They have absolutely nothing zero zip zilch to work with.

Not to belittle Fitz!’s courtroom skills but the evidence is like sidewinder missiles while Wells is rolling up spitballs.

Imagine if you are on the jury and “supposedly” know little about the case. Spitballs, sand in the eyes, “paintballs and spaghetti thrown against the walls” could caste a shadow for a Bush administration cult member.

Moch Dem @ 3
—-Andrew Sullivan weighs in:
“The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared – so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods – Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable. I don’t want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can’t prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he’s getting warmer; and he won’t give up.”
————
Mandrake @ 27
This has been obvious to so many of us for so long, it is amazing to see the light bulb go off in Sullivan’s head just now. Okay, is everybody finally waking up here? Sheesh. Still, better late than never.
————
fahrender @ 103
andrew sullivan having an epiphany is a good thing but we’ve still got a long way to go before we’re even close to “everyone”.

The only way Sullivan could keep the light bulb in his head dark is if he had his head up his . . . If I had no idea who Sullivan was I would have sworn that he was being sarcastic.

I’d say they were definitely scared of the charges being leveled by Wilson. These guys are all eligible for the death penalty several times over for the crimes that brought us into this war, not to mention the crimes that have transpired since the war started.

Also, isn’t it ironic that Wells is up there attempting to impugn the integrity of Timmeh due to his not recalling a given appearance on television while his client’s entire defense rests on the assumption that he learned something, allegedly forgot it, leaked that something he’d forgotten to the press, then relearned it from someone who didn’t know it?

Libby will fry.

QuentinCompson @ 37

How often does a judge, say, walk over to the next courtroom for free advice?
-

if you understand that our legal system is built on prescedents (previous cases), then you understand that there is ALWAYS some “Free Advice” involved in American legal decisions

cal @ 106

Has Wells managed to raise reasonable doubt about anything?

I have a reasonable doubt in Wells’ ability as a lawyer

does that count ???

I understand that everybody is entitled to a defense, and i don’t hold scooter’s obvious guilt against Wells, but the man has continually pissed off and alienated the jury for no apparent reason. If Wells were my attorney, we would have had a few heated arguments by now

If Libby felt he had the President’s authorization to reveal the NIE information, that it had been declassified, then why would he, or anyone else who ‘leaked’ it, be afraid to say to.

It seems unlikely you ‘leak’ something which is declassified and is set to be made public.

Timing is everything. When did this or that happen and did someone lie about the sequence or timing to cover-up some culpability. The time-line is crucial to a case like this.

It could be they’ll not only show Libby obstructed, but that by showing the whole web of activity and the timeline it will become apparent who authorized it, whether it was indeed declassified, and who went into the field to leak it. In short the whole house of cards will probably come tumbling down when Fitzgerald gives his summation and lays it all out.

Mr.Murder @
52

Executive Orders do not carry the weight of law outside the scope of precedence or letter do they?

This is the equivalent of a signing statement.

At the end of the Executive Order 13292 it says

“(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended.”

I would assume that any National Security law (including the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act) would supercede acts undertaken under this order if they violated those laws.

In other words, the President cannot order an executive action (even under the veil of an Executive Order) that is Unconstitutional or illegal by statute.

Fitz should rest his case right now. That re-direct was devastating.

I especially liked this bit:

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I’d heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

The judge would not allow the defense to bring in a memory expert, but Russert and Fitzgerald provided the key point – folks forget stuff that seems to be unimportant.

Do you suppose they will submit an expert witness bill to the Libby Defense Trust, or is that pro bono by Fitzgerald?

As to whether Wells has raised any reasonable doubts, you might start by asking whether there are any reasonable doubters here.

If there are then riddle me this:

1. Grenier told the FBI he wasn’t sure if he told Libby about Plame, told the grand jury he wasn’t sure, then, in 2005, changed his mind and realized he was sure.

Anyone have any doubts about that?

2. Grossman, a friend of Wilson, told the jury he mentioned Plame to Libby face to face. He told the FBI it was over the phone. No memos, no other witnesses, no records.

Any doubts about Grossman?

3. Schmall, the CIA briefer, has no recollection of discussing Plame with Libby. However, it is in his notes, so he is sure he did.

Any doubts?

4. Judy Miler says that looking at her notebook for June 23 fully refreshed her memory of her Libby conversation. However, when she sees the name “Valery Flame” or Joe Wilson’s phone number in her notebook, nothing is refreshed at all.

She also spent 85 days in jail protecting sources, but can’t remember now who they were.

Any doubts?

5. Re “Russert had no reason to lie” – really?

If he admitted that he had told Libby about Plame, he would have been subpoenaed to reveal sources. *IF* his source was Mitchell, he would not even have reporter-source protection to fight about (and lose) in court.

So Russert tells the truth, gives up Mitchell, she goes to court and loses – how would that affect Russert’s ability to lead the Washington Bureau – do you suppose other reporters would still tell him their stories?

So – Russert *may* have lied to avoid chilling other sources and his own newsroom – that gives him about five million reasons a year to lie.

Impossible? Or might someone entertain some doubts?

C’mon – if you can’t see gaping holes in Fitzgerald’s presentation, that only shows the weakness of your examination, not the strength of his case.

And yes, I am well aware of the stronger points of his presentation. I got the impression folks here were unaware of any weaknesses at all.

malcontent @
116

Also, isn’t it ironic that Wells is up there attempting to impugn the integrity of Timmeh due to his not recalling a given appearance on television while his client’s entire defense rests on the assumption that he learned something, allegedly forgot it, leaked that something he’d forgotten to the press, then relearned it from someone who didn’t know it?

Pepsi up my nose.

Tom Maguire @
121

Fitz should rest his case right now. That re-direct was devastating.

I especially liked this bit:

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I’d heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

The judge would not allow the defense to bring in a memory expert, but Russert and Fitzgerald provided the key point – folks forget stuff that seems to be unimportant.

Do you suppose they will submit an expert witness bill to the Libby Defense Trust, or is that pro bono by Fitzgerald?

As to whether Wells has raised any reasonable doubts, you might start by asking whether there are any reasonable doubters here.

If there are then riddle me this:

1. Grenier told the FBI he wasn’t sure if he told Libby about Plame, told the grand jury he wasn’t sure, then, in 2005, changed his mind and realized he was sure.

Anyone have any doubts about that?

2. Grossman, a friend of Wilson, told the jury he mentioned Plame to Libby face to face. He told the FBI it was over the phone. No memos, no other witnesses, no records.

Any doubts about Grossman?

3. Schmall, the CIA briefer, has no recollection of discussing Plame with Libby. However, it is in his notes, so he is sure he did.

Any doubts?

4. Judy Miler says that looking at her notebook for June 23 fully refreshed her memory of her Libby conversation. However, when she sees the name “Valery Flame” or Joe Wilson’s phone number in her notebook, nothing is refreshed at all.

She also spent 85 days in jail protecting sources, but can’t remember now who they were.

Any doubts?

5. Re “Russert had no reason to lie” – really?

If he admitted that he had told Libby about Plame, he would have been subpoenaed to reveal sources. *IF* his source was Mitchell, he would not even have reporter-source protection to fight about (and lose) in court.

So Russert tells the truth, gives up Mitchell, she goes to court and loses – how would that affect Russert’s ability to lead the Washington Bureau – do you suppose other reporters would still tell him their stories?

So – Russert *may* have lied to avoid chilling other sources and his own newsroom – that gives him about five million reasons a year to lie.

Impossible? Or might someone entertain some doubts?

C’mon – if you can’t see gaping holes in Fitzgerald’s presentation, that only shows the weakness of your examination, not the strength of his case.

And yes, I am well aware of the stronger points of his presentation. I got the impression folks here were unaware of any weaknesses at all.

SEEMS LIKE “REASONABLE DOUBT” TO ME!!

Libby says he talked about it with Russert…..but then says he was mistaken and that he first learned about it from the VP a month earlier. He gets indicted because they say he lied about that. Russert says to FBI he is not sure if he spoke to Libby about Plame. Later he says he does not remember that. Andrea Mitchell who works for Russert says everyone knew….she then says she was wrong…and has not clue to how she said that….then tasks her lawyers to stop her from testifying

There is so much reasonable doubt its crazy….not to meantion there is no reason for the lie in the first place. It serves zero purpose.

Andrea Mitchell lost her script….this is too funny.