Fitz! Great job again ladies!

Oh. My. God.

Judith Matahari Miller on FRONTLINE right now.

What a lying sack of shite.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled FDL Evening News.

FRONNTLINE on PBS

Right now

Judy Miller

Woody

Fitz, and the girls

Her sources were wrong, she says.

As if vetting her sources was not her job. As if her role was merely stenography or remote viewing.

And Bill Keller claiming it was just a race for the front page. Who sets that tone in a media outlet, Keller?

Great summary as per usual, thanks.

Justice Will Prevail.

And it will be live blogged :)

Btw I watched the taping of this excellent video. And helped them with their hair.

Look, Scooter Pie.
Two choices (since nothing else has worked):
Get the big creep Cheney
on the stand and show everyone
who your evil daddy was or do hard time.
What’s it gonna be?

egregious @ 7

Justice Will Prevail.

And it will be live blogged :)

Btw I watched the taping of this excellent video. And helped them with their hair.

Great job all the way around today, thank you!

Has EW got into the courtroom yet?

If he is convicted on the 3 charges associated with Russert how much could the judge sentence him for? Any lawyerly guesses?

So, what is it?

Wells rests because [1] he’s confident he’s got “reasonable doubt” or [2] he’s throwing down the white hanky (moving on — meter running — to appeals, prior to pardon)?
_

Great work summarizing the day, Jeralyn, Marcy and Jane. What a wonderful opportunity this has been for all of us to have a window into what’s really happening at Prettyman.

And another black mark in BigTime’s book: getting Jane out of her hospital bed and then chickening out! I betcha Judge Walton’s none too happy with this psych either. Do you suppose the Shooter/Scooter-testifying was all a head-fake, or did the defense change their mind?

Personally, I don’t buy the conversation-with-Mrs.-Scooter decision not to testify — too much luncheon detail served up in order not to piss off Judge Walton.

Man, that picture of Cheney on the bottom of video is nasty. What an awful scowl – hide the children.

And my dear friends, your hair looked wonderful :)

Fitzgerald’s cross of Hannah was just devastating and brutal. Even in the not-verbatim not-transcript, you could feel it penetrate that entire “I’m a busy guy” defense like a bullet in slow motion. You can see it coming, every agonizing millisecond, but you can’t dodge it.

Perry Mason indeed.

As for Libby, he’s not testifying because he’s guilty as sin. Or at least as charged. Walton’s habit of letting the jury ask questions is like a running jury poll. You may not know what the count is, but you at least know the direction they’re headed. (And am I right in assuming that Counsel and Govt go over the questions along with Walton in sidebar, note any objections, etc. before they are asked? In which case, Wells and Fitzgerald have a pretty good idea of the totality of jury sentiment–more so than we do. We don’t get to hear the juror question, “Do you think the defendant is a lying fucktwad?”)

Wells has been pretty up front about laying down a record for appeals, which is only necessary if they lose. And speaking of that, I know I don’t get to sit around in meetings and say, “I’m glad I got that on the record so I can go over your head to your boss if you don’t approve my budget proposal.” I think if I said that I’d be invited to an intimate meeting wherein my butt would be royally chewed for insubordination.

Jane, the coverage of the trial has been the most fantastic example of citizen journalism to date. I don’t lament the utter fecklessness of the media anymore, I’ve got Jane and her crew telling it like it is. Thank you. I’m sorry about The Shooter. I was looking forward to it too. I think the presence of powerful independent coverage scared him off. What a wuss.

You rock, Jane! Go Team Plame!

In what warm cafe did you escape from the snow for your video moment today?

egregious @ 15

And my dear friends, your hair looked wonderful :)

I think that they were happy not to be outside freezing too.

Jane –

Thank you so much, for everything!

Like I told you last week, your courage has been a special inspiration to me. So seeing you in this video and hearing your strong voice in this posting gives me an extra jolt of motivation!

[Have to make dinner in time for us to watch Frontline next hour — but couldn’t split without telling you this first.]

Boy, Jeralyn seems right on the money with suggesting the defense should go with the everybody is fallible instead of everybody’s out to get scooter. The problem is scooter is not going to tell his side of the story. It’s going to be a hard sell.

TeddySanFran @
13

Personally, I don’t buy the conversation-with-Mrs.-Scooter decision not to testify — too much luncheon detail served up in order not to piss off Judge Walton.

I didn’t hear about that – he should have testified, with her in the courtroom weeping.

Hey, it’s worked before…

AZ Matt @ 19

egregious @ 15

And my dear friends, your hair looked wonderful :)

I think that they were happy not to be outside freezing too.

It wasn’t so very cold today. But it was icy walking in my black high heels :o

joel @ 16

Fitzgerald’s cross of Hannah was just devastating and brutal. Even in the not-verbatim not-transcript, you could feel it penetrate that entire “I’m a busy guy” defense like a bullet in slow motion. You can see it coming, every agonizing millisecond, but you can’t dodge it.

Well put! That was a big balloon that got popped.

PBS Frontline: “News War” Part I: Secrets, Sources, & Spin tonight @ 9:00 p.m. PST

on the relationship between the Bush Administration and the media. One of the topics will be “unintended consequences of the Plame investigation.” pbs.org

Maybe Scoots will get a visit from the Ghost of Fitzmas Yet to Come and decide to spill the beans. One can dream.

…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!

Thanks for the great coverage through some of the pioneering moments in live-blogging!

So Murray Waas has a new story coming out that should be merely “pretty” interesting, and Marcy thinks Fitz is playing nice to keep Novak in line for future investigations . . .

You’ve been teasing all day, Jane!

Peterr @ 28

So Murray Waas has a new story coming out that should be merely “pretty” interesting, and Marcy thinks Fitz is playing nice to keep Novak in line for future investigations . . .

You’ve been teasing all day, Jane!

There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
Just sayin’.

Well, Scooter and Shooter are no-shows.

Disappointing, but, probably a good move by the defense. They used Shooter to winnow out the jury, and the memory defense to delay trial through all the bullshit CIPA deliberations.

Now that they pretty much have had the legs knocked out from under their perjury defense, they’re going to rest after hearing from a few witnesses attesting to the fact that Libby was a busy, busy guy and was defending the free world all by his lonesome.

A nice try, but no cigar. That they’re going to try to impeach Timmeh’s testimony on the basis of something he said on camera eight or so years ago about how a GJ works shows the level of desperation at work here.

I’m not about to fault the defense for trying (or not even trying that hard if that’ll help their client–but, with Wells/Jeffress/Cline, fully-loaded barrels of lawyers from two firms and a $5 million slush fund at his disposal, Scooter’s gonna play hell trying to convince an appeals court that he had an inadequate defense).

So, we now watch Libby run out the appeals clock and wait for a pardon at the last minute in 2009.

I’m less inclined now to believe that Libby will flip for Fitzgerald in the event of a conviction. He really is one of the true believers, and will probably manage to stay out of jail during the appeals process, although I would enjoy seeing the government describe him as a flight risk to deny him bail on appeal….

Peterr @ 28

So Murray Waas has a new story coming out that should be merely “pretty” interesting, and Marcy thinks Fitz is playing nice to keep Novak in line for future investigations . . .

You’ve been teasing all day, Jane!

I still want Rove. But I think there are a lot more arrows pointing to Cheney.

joel- from what I’ve read at FDL, Walton decides which jury questions to ask. No indication from the comments I’ve seen as to whether or not pros/ def gets to see them or weigh in, but I’ve assumed not. Anyone?

…but but but what am I supposed to do with all of this popcorn?

peony @ 25

PBS Frontline: “News War” Part I: Secrets, Sources, & Spin tonight @ 9:00 p.m. PST

I watched this and thought that the press has a hard time covering and commenting on itself when some of their own has crossed a line, but it was interesting

Do lawyers as well, have a hard time recognizing when one of their own has crossed the line?

montag, re: “and the memory defense to delay trial through all the bullshit CIPA deliberations”

My impression was and/or that this was designed to over tax and wear down the resources of team Fitz.

and what about all the stock I bought in Orville Reddenbacher?

Jeralyn closes it out, “Thanks for watching”.

Thank you Jeralyn. Thank you.

Soup to nuts, the coverage has been fantastic. We’re at the edge of our seats during the day with the educated live blogging (psuedo transcription with analysis!), then we get the nightly wrap-up’s with video from the court room crew. Then supplemental coverage as appropriate from remotes.

Valley Girl @ 35

montag, re: “and the memory defense to delay trial through all the bullshit CIPA deliberations”

My impression was and/or that this was designed to overtax and wear down the resources of team Fitz.

And how did that work out for them?

This impeachment-of-Russert with MTP tapes from The Great Fellatio Crisis of the Nineteen-Nineties reeks of Comstock. Only she would have a researcher poring over Tim-tapes from that era, and only she could convince Wells that it’s impeachable of Russert. I doubt Walton will allow it.

once again, you guys made my day!
on russert saying he knew about the grand jury no lawyer thing on various new programs, remember he’s reading a teleprompter and as soon as the interview is over he does a delete in his mind. part of his job is that of a “reader”. he gets all made up, remembers to sit on the tail of his jacket so the collar doesn’t ride up, and off he goes, reading whatever the producer has timed out for him.

A footnote to Jane’s description of the ‘Perry Mason moment’ above:

Hannah had given an extensive, detailed view of how Libby was a super bigshot. Finally (From Emptywheel’s live-blogging)
“Fitz up!!!!
Fitz: Scope of Chief of Staff as you understood it. Part of it was to protect the Office of the Vice President and VP from public criticism.
The Year of Iran (TYOI = Hannah): It’s not the formulation I would use, Need to go out and truthfully defend office from unfair criticism.
Fitz: Especially important if it was directed at integrity of VP or OVP, and integrity of Admin, OVP, VP, in terms of Iraq.�
TYOI: It would be important to pushback, yes. [he’s a lot more reluctant]
Fitz: Best time to see Libby was evening, particularly if you focus July 6.� Fair to say during that week, if you said, ‘Tomorrow morning let’s take an hour or two to go out for coffee,’ he wouldn’t take that time.
TYOI: It would be harder.
Fitz: If he gave someone an hour or two, it was something Libby thought was important?
TYOI: WRT me, yes.”

At this point a Marshall sitting next to me at the back of the courtroom said, half to himself, half to me, “Pat buried him in one question!”

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

Valley Girl @ 35

My impression was and/or that this was designed to over tax and wear down the resources of team Fitz.

All part of the process, certainly. Now, we wait to see if Wells or Jeffress makes a slip in summation that would indicate to Walton that offering up Libby’s testimony was a ploy all along. :)

They’ve done some pretty cheesy things so far (such as that crack about Fitzgerald coaching his witnesses), so it wouldn’t be out of character for them to make another mistake in trying to redefine the boundaries….

Eureka Springs, AR @ 33

…but but but what am I supposed to do with all of this popcorn?

Stick it in the freezer until the next trial.

Eli #38- obviously not as well as might be expected, but the discussion at the end of today, Walton report tomorrow, made me wonder if they hadn’t managed a minor sleight of hand.

Keep up the good work!

Eureka Springs, AR @ 33

…but but but what am I supposed to do with all of this popcorn?

We will have the Waxman Wars, the Conyers Chorale, the Leahy Liberation and many other sources of pure oversight delight which will require popcorn by the barrel full. Not to worry.

Forgive me, OT, but YES!!! The springer spaniel won Best in Show at Westminster. YEEHAH!

Valley Girl @ 45

Eli #38- obviously not as well as might be expected, but the discussion at the end of today, Walton report tomorrow, made me wonder if they hadn’t managed a minor sleight of hand.

I doubt that Fitz’s resources were particularly overextended, but “sleight of hand” is probably more accurate – the whole thing sounded like it was some kind of feint so that Fitz would assume that Libby would take the stand, and strategize accordingly (and incorrectly).

Eureka Springs, AR @ 33

…but but but what am I supposed to do with all of this popcorn?

I think this is just the overture. Here is what the grand jury was tasked with:

On September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Lewis Libby, a senior White House official, was indicted on October 28, 2005. (from wiki)

I don’t think that job is done yet, and I don’t think that Fitz is the kind of guy to quit before it is. We need to form an FDL popcorn buying group.

Shucks, Jane. I really wanted you to have the pleasure of seeing Dick squirm on the stand.

Still, you’ve done so much here in the past couple of years. With Lamont and Libby, you’ve helped change the country. Not too many people can make that claim. What’s next?

Thanks for all.

OldCoastie @ 36

and what about all the stock I bought in Orville Reddenbacher?

Cousin “Irving” sure looks like he could take Orville’s place, don’t you think? Looks like he will have lots of free time between think tank gigs now. Anyway if I were Irving (perish the thought), I would stay away from small planes and balconies for a few years.

This all so Orvillian or Rovillian (I can’t decide) it’s still up to Fitz.

williamSmith @ 42

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

OK, lotta questions there. I would just predict that Scooter WILL get bail pending appeal. The stratified relative proportions of people found guilty and granted appeal bond is probably not too difficult an empirical matter to unearth given a bit of time, but I would say, that yeah, it’s partly a matter of juice and money (in the context of the charges), though ostensibly fundamentally a matter of “flight risk” and subjective likelihood of success on appeal.
_

montag @ 30

I’m less inclined now to believe that Libby will flip for Fitzgerald in the event of a conviction. He really is one of the true believers, and will probably manage to stay out of jail during the appeals process, although I would enjoy seeing the government describe him as a flight risk to deny him bail on appeal….

What if this case really was just one more inexorable step towards the truth of the crime behind underlying motivation?

Do you think Libby will get a 24 month sentence, and be able to sit out in a comfortable place while awaiting appeal?

My guess is that Fitz will demand a great deal more from Walton during closing.

What was the affidavit F showed to a judge 3 years ago – did hand the case to a Grand Jury? I am admittedly hazy on this, but as I recall it the Judge was like “Holy Shit!” or wouldn’t have done it.

I am with Marci when she speculates this from above:

Marcy believes that Fitzgerald would not have handled Robert Novak, who was really a bit of a disgusting hack on the stand, so gently if he did not need him for future aspects of his investigation.

If Marci believes this too then it’s a LOT more than just wishful thinking on my part. This prosecutor would have buried the wooden stake as deep as he could unless he was waiting for an opportunity to do it with some panache.

All this Perry Mason stuff is really fascinating, but I hope nobody is looking to Fitz to save our country or much reduce the most serious present threats. Cheney needs to be EX-Vice President as soon as possible. Everybody should be putting pressure on Congress critters in every reasonable way possible to help make this happen.

Please.

Marion in Savannah @ 48

Forgive me, OT, but YES!!! The springer spaniel won Best in Show at Westminster. YEEHAH!

Congratulations and, er, boing!

Dick see (blogger) chicks.
Dick run.
See Dick run.
Run Dick run.

I am going to have 2 MAJOR withdrawl problems next week:

#1 No more end of the trial day videos summing up, so perfectly, what happened. I don’t know how you do it without very extensive editing.

#2 Al Franken leaving Air America. I listen to him every day while repeating over and over, “Do NOT hit F5 yet, do NOT hit F5 yet” for the latest trial update.

What I am really going to miss about the loss of Franken is his very intelligent interviews with the experts that I so highly respect. Where will we hear Oliphant now? or Ornstein? I am really depressed about this.

Anybody else?

Oh Scooter. You fool. Here’s something for you by Salvador Dali-

the persistence of memory-

http://www.moma.org/collection…..t_id=79018

The Firehook!

I just was there last month for work (live thousands of miles away). Went there for breakfast, lunch, and dinner that day. Hope you liked it!

I am absolutely addicted to this liveblogging by Emptywheel and Swopa et al. And the end of day video summary is tops.

It has been historic and awesome.

I will miss Al too.

Jane, outstanding coverage. Thank you!

Firehooklake?

I LOVE these politics tv spots. Please keep doing them – not only on Libby – but on an ongoing basis.

now to see the ‘tv show’ on firedoglake with a ‘news update’ and then get some zzzzzzzzzzzzs…

and thanks to all of you for this…….

Marion in Savannah @ 48

Forgive me, OT, but YES!!! The springer spaniel won Best in Show at Westminster. YEEHAH!

Cool! My first dog was a Springer Spaniel named Scooter. I kid you not and long story shortened he was hit by a car. RIP Scooter 1968 -71.

stingray #54- Are you thinking of this?
Judge Tatel – “Because I agree that the balance in this case, which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent, favors compelling the reporters; testimony, I join the judgment of the court.”
But this was way back when.

Valley Girl @
32

joel- from what I’ve read at FDL, Walton decides which jury questions to ask. No indication from the comments I’ve seen as to whether or not pros/ def gets to see them or weigh in, but I’ve assumed not. Anyone?

VG, I could be wrong, but I remember reading during the first week of the trial, in one of Marcy’s summaries, that defense and Fitz’s team got to look over the questions along with Walton, though only he asks them.

Team Libby knows it’s screwed for at 2-3 of the counts. Why would they let Fitz sink his teeth into Scooter or Deadeye Dick? The potential for major political embarrassment is too great, even for these guys who seem to have no shame, not to mention other possible criminal charges.

No, to me everything points to lame-ass appeals, financed by the $3M Scooter Defense Fund, followed by a pardon in the last of the dark days of the Shrub Maladministration.

Eli @ 62

Firehooklake?

No doubt to Libby and Cheney it is more like Fireaxlake!

drat. i’ll miss you guys live blogging. i’d watch you live blog punxatawney phil’s annual appearance. thank you again.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 67

Valley Girl @
32

joel- from what I’ve read at FDL, Walton decides which jury questions to ask. No indication from the comments I’ve seen as to whether or not pros/ def gets to see them or weigh in, but I’ve assumed not. Anyone?

VG, I could be wrong, but I remember reading during the first week of the trial, in one of Marcy’s summaries, that defense and Fitz’s team got to look over the questions along with Walton, though only he asks them.

Thanks NefLes. I trust your memory of what you read!

Wonderful work. Just wonderful, and an inspiration.

I’d like to believe, too, a nail in the coffin of the moribund mainstream press.

Oh and one final teaser — Marcy believes that Fitzgerald would not have handled Robert Novak, who was really a bit of a disgusting hack on the stand, so gently if he did not need him for future aspects of his investigation.

Just a bit of speculation. But something to think about.

I wish she’d flesh out that speculation. I’ve been under the [sad] impression that he was done.

The liveblogging has been positively addictive — thanks to all who made it possible. I’ve given a couple of times to the fund :-) Here’s to having more reasons to keep Plame house going.

lectric lady @ 57

I am going to have 2 MAJOR withdrawl problems next week:

#1 No more end of the trial day videos summing up, so perfectly, what happened. I don’t know how you do it without very extensive editing.

#2 Al Franken leaving Air America. I listen to him every day while repeating over and over, “Do NOT hit F5 yet, do NOT hit F5 yet” for the latest trial update.

What I am really going to miss about the loss of Franken is his very intelligent interviews with the experts that I so highly respect. Where will we hear Oliphant now? or Ornstein? I am really depressed about this.

Anybody else?

No need to worry. If you want intelligent interviews, his replacement Thom Hartmann is one of the best in the business. Frankly, Franken leaving is fairly good news for me. First, happy he’s running for Congress, and second, was getting a little tired of him and his sidekicks talking/arguing about the minutiae of Harvard life. Appreciate everything he’s done though to get Air America rolling. Can’t imagine not having it now, or FDL for that matter.

Melissa (the second blogger) has stepped down from the Edwards campaign.

williamSmith @ 42

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

Hi William,

Happy first post, if it is. I’m almost 60, too, and I’ve been going to the FireDog Lake School of Law for the past few weeks. From what I have gleaned here, the question is the risk of flight. If Team Libby can convince Judge Walton that Scooter will not skip town he will probably not have to go to jail while the appeals are being heard. Ways to get people to stick around include making them post a bail and the knowledge that if they are caught again the sentence will be *much* more severe plus they can be with a new crime, not to mention that it probably won’t help the appeal.

squirrel hiller @ 70

drat. i’ll miss you guys live blogging. i’d watch you live blog punxatawney phil’s annual appearance. thank you again.

I’m not sure that “Firegroundhoglake” works for me.

remember that story about fitz stuffing all his dirty socks in a desk drawer when he was really busy. well, i bet he could use some new ones right about now. is it illegal to send socks to a federal prosecutor?

HotFlash @ 50

We need to form an FDL popcorn buying group.

How’s about FDL label popcorn? Gonna need it for Joe Wilson’s suit. And maybe even the impeachment trial(s)… (I can Wax[man] hopeful can’t I?)

Valley Girl @ 67

stingray #54- Are you thinking of this?
Judge Tatel – “Because I agree that the balance in this case, which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent, favors compelling the reporters; testimony, I join the judgment of the court.”
But this was way back when.

Valley Girl: Thank you for the direct quote – Yes, that’s it :)

Valtin @ 72

Wonderful work. Just wonderful, and an inspiration.

I’d like to believe, too, a nail in the coffin of the moribund mainstream press.

I wish, but I seriously doubt it. I don’t think people outside the liberal blogosphere are paying close attention to that particular subtext of the trial.

IIRC, Russert testified that Novak’s revelation about ‘Wilson’s wife’ constituted BIG News.

Obviously, Russert has a clear memory of when and where he learned about Plame — because he regarded that revelation as important, and it impacted his thinking.

While Wells is busy trying to impeach Russert, he may as well claim that Russert forgot about the fall of the Berlin Wall, forgot about the outcome of the 2000 election, and forgot about the death Princess Diana. In for a dime; in for a dollar. Wells should also try to impeach Russert for failing to accurately recall the name of the kids he sat next to in the seventh grade.

—-
RE: Emptywheel’s book. It’s the best political thriller that I’ve read in ages — absolutely fantastic writing! I only wish it weren’t a true story… but thanks for helping it all make sense.

For some reason, Waxman wants to talk to Ol’ 60 Grit’s husband. Perhaps the popcorn will not go to waste.

“No need to worry. If you want intelligent interviews, his replacement Thom Hartmann is one of the best in the business. Frankly, Franken leaving is fairly good news for me. First, happy he’s running for Congress, and second, was getting a little tired of him and his sidekicks talking/arguing about the minutiae of Harvard life. Appreciate everything he’s done though to get Air America rolling. Can’t imagine not having it now, or FDL for that matter.”

Will Tom Hartmann do lots of interviews with great experts? Or more like Randi Rhodes who, while I love her in small doses, really rants a lot.

Trex has got onion dip upstairs.

Haven’t been able to follow every little bit, but did I miss something? What happened to the whole Scoots was a scapegoat for KKKarl Rove that was in the defense opening statement?

Did the defense offer anything about that since? I would imagine this would feel quite manipulative to the jurors if the opening statement doesn’t relate to the actual case presented. All seems so fishy…rotten fish that is…

Great work! The writings of EW CHS and Jane complement each other immensely.

Someone asked me “What’s next, after Scooter?” I told him I didn’t know, but Fitz has a pattern of moving up the food chain…although it usually requires someone to flip. Scooter won’t unless he faces jail time. Maybe not even then.

Does a conviction advance Fitz’s investigation in the least bit?

I remember when the Scooter indictment came down, I wondered if it was partially a run-through to iron out the procedures for future indictments. I kinda doubt it.

But a fellow can dream…

joel @ 16

Wells has been pretty up front about laying down a record for appeals, which is only necessary if they lose. And speaking of that, I know I don’t get to sit around in meetings and say, “I’m glad I got that on the record so I can go over your head to your boss if you don’t approve my budget proposal.” I think if I said that I’d be invited to an intimate meeting wherein my butt would be royally chewed for insubordination.

Every lawyer does that — especially in a criminal trial — even if they think they have a decent chance of acquittal. It’s malpractice not to do it. So Wells isn’t going to get chewed out by anybody for preserving his appellate arguments.

Having said that, it’s hard to see what he’s got for an appeal. Here are the possibilities, in my view, but I could be missing something, so others chime in:

1. No testimony from memory expert: Walton’s ruling on this gets a fair amount of deference on appeal. In some state of mind cases — insanity or diminished capacity being the most obvious — expert testimony is almost a necessity, regardless of whether the defendant testifies. But expert testimony about whether a defendants was medically unable to form criminal intent is based on a diagnosis formed after a significant amount of observation. The memory expert’s testimony was not going to be based on observation of Libby, and even if it was, it couldn’t resolve the question of whether Libby in fact lied or misremembered his conversations with Russert, Cooper and Miller. In other words, a memory expert can’t say, I’ve observed the defendant and he shows all the symptoms of truth-telling. You don’t need expert testimony to tell the jury that it’s possible to forget things. Everyone knows it’s “possible” to forget things they knew a short time before — haven’t you ever run around the house looking for car keys you were holding? The question here is whether it is not only “possible” in the abstract sense, but “reasonably possible” in light of all the defendant’s other conduct.

2. CIIPA Issues:They could appeal Walton’s rejection of the “greymail” defense, i.e., ruling that classified material could only come in, and then in very limited ways, if Libby took the stand. I don’t think this is going to be a big issue on appeal, because I don’t think the appellate courts are going to be terribly sympathetic to the “overwhelmed by Much More Important Matters” theory.
3. No Testimony from Mrs. Greenspan: I don’t think the appellate court is going to rule that Walton erred by not letting Mrs. Greenspan be impeached on her recantation of her initial recitation of White House talking points about unnamed reporters knowing about Plame, because this impeachment would show she was telling the truth when she was reciting the talking points.
4. Permitting Fitz to Boast About His Investigation: Late today, Wells was making noise about needing to call David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell because Fitz had never interviewed them or brought them before the grand jury, on the grounds that he needed to rebut Fitz’s boast in his opening statement that he had been on a search for truth. Apparently, if Fitz had really been on a search for truth, Wells believes that Fitz would have interviewed them, but Walton did not think Fitz was boasting about the perfection of his investigation. I don’t think the appellate court will find error in this ruling either.
5. Last minute impeachment of Potatohead: Evidently it wasn’t enough to show that Timmeh had forgotten something in a dispute with a Buffalo paper. Now Wells wants to impeach him — a week after his cross — with tapes of Timmeh talking about how a witness can’t bring a lawyer with him into a grand jury in 1998. This is so important that if Walton thinks Timmeh needs to be given an opportunity to explain why he didn’t remember in 2007 that he knew this in 1998, Timmeh should be recalled as a defense witness. Walton is considering this overnight. I think that there is no basis for this request, but I suppose it’s possible that Walton will let him do it because he knows Scooter is going down and wants to appear to be bending over backwards on this. I hope he doesn’t, though.

What else?

Good evening, all:

The liveblogging and analysis of the Plame affair and the Libby trial have been superb. Everyone at FDL should be commended for their historic work!

Time for me to turn in for the night. I have a school gig in the morning, and it looks like the commute will be awful. We’re only getting around 5-6 inches of snow here, but I’m heading into the area where it’s they’re predicting 8 inches of snow, with the heaviest falling overnight. I’m going to go to bed and get up early, hoping the school will be canceled so I can stay home and hang out with the FDL crew.

Good night!

I just got done watching the video link above.

Even when she’s just listening, Marcy is hilarious!!! :)

FFFFFFFIIIIIIITTTTTZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!

We won’t know for sure what Wells thinks he’s got until we hear the close- but he’s gonna have to wax poetic to make a mountain of injustice out of this dung hill.

lectric lady:

Oh Hartmann will have many excellent guests. If there’s any knock against him, he’s too intellectual and not entertaining enough, although I don’t feel that way.

Sounds like you might be pleasantly surprised by Thom. He’ll actually bring wingnuts on and completely destroy their arguments and embarrass them, and he’s polite through it all (did this to Dinesh D’Snooza recently). A classic case of killing them with kindness. Hope you like the change…

HotFlash @
78

williamSmith @ 42

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

Hi William,

Happy first post, if it is. I’m almost 60, too, and I’ve been going to the FireDog Lake School of Law for the past few weeks. From what I have gleaned here, the question is the risk of flight. If Team Libby can convince Judge Walton that Scooter will not skip town he will probably not have to go to jail while the appeals are being heard. Ways to get people to stick around include making them post a bail and the knowledge that if they are caught again the sentence will be *much* more severe plus they can be with a new crime, not to mention that it probably won’t help the appeal.

Thanks for the answer and also BobbyG @53. So no chance, as I think some other comments are suggesting, that Fitz gets to say to Walton “here’s some more GJ testimony and where I’m going, and I need this guy in the clink immediately for leverage, and by the way I also need whatever the maximum sentence can be”? Wishful thinking, right? It’s still a long drawn out affair before Libby faces the gulf between a life of liberty and imprisonment with only Bridge Cheney spanning the two?

bonkers @ 94

lectric lady:

Oh Hartmann will have many excellent guests. If there’s any knock against him, he’s too intellectual and not entertaining enough, although I don’t feel that way.

Sounds like you might be pleasantly surprised by Thom. He’ll actually bring wingnuts on and completely destroy their arguments and embarrass them, and he’s polite through it all (did this to Dinesh D’Snooza recently). A classic case of killing them with kindness. Hope you like the change…

I hope so… but… will he ever do the Queen’s drumroll?

the best part of Thom Hartmann’s show is “lunch with bernie.”
on fridays he has senator bernie sanders on for the first hour and they take listener calls. bernie is an awsome independent progressive. i wish he would run for pres.

stingray @ 54

What if this case really was just one more inexorable step towards the truth of the crime behind underlying motivation?

Do you think Libby will get a 24 month sentence, and be able to sit out in a comfortable place while awaiting appeal?

My guess is that Fitz will demand a great deal more from Walton during closing.

Nope, don’t think so. If Scooter is convicted, he’ll get bail during appeal (and an appeal, preferably before a kindly-disposed DC appeals court, is a certainty). This is a race of sorts–that Scooter can stay out of jail until the last moment of Bush’s presidency, when a pardon won’t have much political impact. Unless Scooter goes to jail, there’s no pressure from the conviction itself.

Now, as far as other charges, Fitzgerald could have indicted Armitage, but he didn’t–Armitage’s explanation was that he didn’t know Plame was covert–that exempted him from prosecution under IIPA. Rove has probably said the same thing in the GJ.

The only thing left is conspiracy–and if none of them knew at the time that Plame was covert, then there’s no ultimate crime of conspiracy, because they weren’t conspiring to break the law. It falls into the category of a very bad political dirty trick that had unintended consequences, given the way the IIPA was written.

About all that can happen from now on is administrative–having their clearances stripped from them for violating the terms of their SF-312s.

Nope, I think, unfortunately, this is it. About all Fitzgerald can do is request of the judge that he deny Libby bail in the sentencing portion of the trial, something Walton simply is not going to do.

Shooter is behind much of this, WHIG figures very prominently in this, but for conspiracy to stick, there’s got to be some plotting to break the law.

The only way to go on from here is to have had some testimony that others in WHIG and/or Shooter lied in testimony and/or actively sought to obstruct justice. Those charges could have been made independently of this trial, and yet, they have not been, most likely because Fitzgerald has decided they’re not airtight.

It all sounds very depressing, but, legally, I think this is going to be it. If one thinks about it, the White House and the OVP did exactly the same thing here that they did with regard to evidence for war–they ran with whatever came into their hands that they thought could be used, that improved their position, and none of it was properly vetted. They simply wanted something, anything to damage Wilson because he was damaging them.

These people really are true believers–they think they had all the evidence they needed to start a war–because they wanted to start a war. Anything that came along which supported their intentions was used, and all else was discarded. That’s why Cheney still is mouthing what is demonstrable BS–in his mind, his facts were pure, because he’d discarded everything else. Same with Valerie Plame. Her connection to the Wilson charges could be used. That is all that mattered to them. They didn’t bother to check further. Any other details just didn’t matter.

That sort of thing has made them all behave exceptionally stupidly–Libby included, because he lied to protect Cheney–because Cheney is likely the one person who knew Plame’s status with some certainty, given his position and his frequency of contact with the CIA.

Is Fitzgerald going to be able to prove that Shooter headed the conspiracy to violate the IIPA and out an agent for political purposes? My guess is no. Not without Libby saying so, and that’s not going to happen if Libby can stay out of jail.

BobbyG @ 53

williamSmith @ 42

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

OK, lotta questions there. I would just predict that Scooter WILL get bail pending appeal. The stratified relative proportions of people found guilty and granted appeal bond is probably not too difficult an empirical matter to unearth given a bit of time, but I would say, that yeah, it’s partly a matter of juice and money (in the context of the charges), though ostensibly fundamentally a matter of “flight risk” and subjective likelihood of success on appeal.
_

I think a third consderation for Walton is the importance of applying pressure on Libby to cooperate with the continuing investigation. Hopefully, this will be enough to order Libby immediately to jail.

The videos have been awesome! Always a pleasure to see three smart women telling us what’s what. And Swopa was great, too. Thank you!!

litigatormom:

Someone here looked at the Appellate Court that would handle this, and there are a couple of Shrub’s extreme appointees. Do you know how a judge gets picked for an appeal case, and is it possible there could be some “funny business” to make sure a neocon crony gets to hear the case?

The two and a half months of unrelenting, brutal, detailed drudgery that made up the CIPA process, was all about the graymail effort to avoid going to trial, by trying to force a dismissal over classified evidence. Obviously, however, that graymail effort failed completely to reach its goal (though it was nip and tuck for awhile). The con about Libby testifying was vital to that graymail effort, and Libby and Co. played it for all it was worth, and Judge Walton indeed bent over backward to accommodate them. Nevertheless, all the defense money and all the defense lawyers failed in their year-long effort to derail this trial, and we have an extremely dedicated Intelligence Community declassification team and Special Counsel team to thank for that very significant achievement.

From appearances at this point, the Libby Defense Trust worked much harder at that graymail dismissal effort, than it did at presenting an actual “reasonable” doubt defense at trial for Scooter Libby. The stuff Wells promised in his opening performance, that has now gone by the wayside, makes me agree with others that this was a co-defense effort on behalf of both Libby and Cheney… Libby probably thinks he protects Cheney and Cheney protects him, and Fitzgerald can go no further without breaking down one or the other. I beg to differ…

Jane – I really appreciated your take yesterday in the wrap-up video about the rehearsed, unnatural impression Novak’s testimony gave, which you’ve also mentioned in this post. I know I wanted Fitzgerald to just light into that guy on the stand, six ways from Sunday, but realize that that would have been tangential to the charges at hand. Unlike EW, I have to believe that Fitzgerald is not counting on Bob Novak to be a prosecution witness in future – Novak is impossible to believe on anything of substance in this investigation, and would be thoroughly discredited in any intense cross-examination, but I do hope he will somehow yet get publicly exposed and humiliated for the craven political operator and liar that he is.

“Commendable” coverage is faint praise indeed for the top-notch effort and passion that FDL and all its helpers have invested in reporting on this trial. Words hardly suffice to express thanks, so I hope dollars are pouring into FDL’s coffers in silent gratitude from all the now-far-more-informed citizens who have been reading this gavel-to-gavel coverage. Thank you.

clbrune @ 89

Great work! The writings of EW CHS and Jane complement each other immensely.

Someone asked me “What’s next, after Scooter?” I told him I didn’t know, but Fitz has a pattern of moving up the food chain…although it usually requires someone to flip. Scooter won’t unless he faces jail time. Maybe not even then.

Does a conviction advance Fitz’s investigation in the least bit?

I remember when the Scooter indictment came down, I wondered if it was partially a run-through to iron out the procedures for future indictments. I kinda doubt it.

But a fellow can dream…

I think the thing that would hav most advanced Fitz’s agenda would have been to cross examine Shooter. I think there is a good chance Cheney will be called before the grand jury. That’s the logical step. Cheney is trapped between a number of his own statements to Investigators and the sworn testimony of others.

Yizmo Gizmo @
8

Look, Scooter Pie.
Two choices (since nothing else has worked):
Get the big creep Cheney
on the stand and show everyone
who your evil daddy was or do hard time.
What’s it gonna be?

Why does everyone get sooo… excited about nailing Darth Cheney, Emperor Bush’s mentor, or even Libby for that matter.

Those of us who have become realists over the last 6 years – read, cynical – have no doubt that Libby will appeal, if convicted, and that will burn up enough time for the Emperor’s reign to run its course.

Then, is there anyone that doubts the Emperor will pardon him? Certainly not anyone who has paid attention to the most brazen, in-your-face administration since LBJ was selling Gulf of Tonkin intelligence.

I would love to see FDL now take its great focus , skill and passion to get out in front of the next War-railroad train: Iran. This IS, and always has been, George I and George II playing Rent-an-Army by Suni Saudi Arabia to fend off Shiite Iran’s theocratic control of the Middle East Oil.

- Puesto

This is a race of sorts–that Scooter can stay out of jail until the last moment of Bush’s presidency, when a pardon won’t have much political impact.

I’m not so sure there will be a pardon, maybe. Cheney et al hung Bush out to dry too it looks like to me. And Bush is concerned about his legacy. I’m not convinced that Cheney and Bush are joined at the hip anymore. We’ll see

“At the end of the day the Judge did not seem terribly open to calling him back, but he’s proven himself willing to keep an open mind to arguments and it wouldn’t be the first time Wells persuaded him about something he was previously quite adamantly opposed to.”

My experience, based on 30 years of being a criminal defense attorney, is that as a conviction becomes more and more certain, a judge starts to think about taking away appeal points. This means granting defense requests that he or she might not have given any credence under different circumstances.

Visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far …

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Valley Girl @
32

joel- from what I’ve read at FDL, Walton decides which jury questions to ask. No indication from the comments I’ve seen as to whether or not pros/ def gets to see them or weigh in, but I’ve assumed not. Anyone?

Valley girl, that’s a great observation. The answer is, after the lawyers finish with each witness, they go up to the bench. The clerk has already collected the juror questions. The judge shares them with the lawyers who get to weigh in on which should be asked. Any objections are noted for the record, and the Judge makes the final decision and asks the questions that survive any challenges.

I’ve never been a big fan of jury questioning in criminal cases, for reasons I won’t go into here, but this jury has asked some pretty astute questions.

williamSmith @
42

I am almost 60 and a bit naive and uninformed about most things legal and criminal. I’ve read comments that, if found guilty, Libby’s attorney will appeal, it will take about a year, and Libby will NOT be in jail during that period. Why’s that? Is it all just a question of money? When the average person gets convicted of a crime, does he or she get to avoid prison if and while there is an appeal in process. Would this be true if you were appealing a murder conviction? Drug dealing? A kidnapping? Outing a CIA agent?

In a federal case, the test for bail on appeal is whether the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community and whether his appeal presents a significant issue of law or fact likely to result in a reversal or new trial — and is not just submitted for purposes of delaying the inevitable.

It’s not a question of money.

Still puzzling over the jury question to Hannah:

Walton: When Libby had memory lapses, what was done to trigger recall of things discussed

TYOI: He was quite good at remembering ideas and concepts, very bad at figuring out where they came from, how they came to him.

First of all, it’s a good practical question that gives an opportunity for jurors to hear an example, based on Hannah’s personal experience with Libby, that verifies that he has in reality had to trigger his recall. What does he do? He misses an opportunity to appeal to the jury and doesn’t answer the question.

By not answering the jury question and instead taking an opportunity to use something that sounds like rehearsed psycho-babble, I get the feeling the expectation was that Fitz would ask for elaboration on cross that he very well could have been anticipating. What does Fitz do in his cross? He sidesteps all of it, drives a nail, and leaves Hannah grimmacing after he whiffed on the change up.

that’s my unbiased take ;)

.

Jeralyn, Christy, Emptywheel or any of the others on scene in the courtroom: I have done a pretty fair amount of state and federal criminal trial work. Is it just me, or has this, in fact, been a pretty sad defense case presented by Libby, Wells, et. al.? There were several significant statements, claims and promises made by Wells in opening that were not even particularly addressed much less supported. The only witnesses they made any real headway with were Russert (and with him not necessarily headway on the crucial point of his testimony) and Hannah today. It is hard enough to get a feeling for what went on in a courtoom from a cold transcript, much less a liveblog; so if any of those that were present for all or some of the trial could address these questions, I sure would appreciate it. Thanks for the incredible work.

I’ve heard rumours that the EPA wouldn’t allow Chenron to be sworn because of the amount of asbestos required to keep things from busting into spontaneous flames

williamSmith @
95

Thanks for the answer and also BobbyG @53. So no chance, as I think some other comments are suggesting, that Fitz gets to say to Walton “here’s some more GJ testimony and where I’m going, and I need this guy in the clink immediately for leverage, and by the way I also need whatever the maximum sentence can be”? Wishful thinking, right? It’s still a long drawn out affair before Libby faces the gulf between a life of liberty and imprisonment with only Bridge Cheney spanning the two?

Well, we won’t know until Fitz indicts the next person, which I hope and believe he will, but I have a hunch he already knows enough right now. After all, he has the FBI investigations and the Grand Jury testimony. Scooter’s may have lied and obstructed, but that doesn’t mean that Fitz doesn’t know the truth. With luck and good management, perhaps he doesn’t even need Libby.

The Pardon Paradox Redux

Some folks have continue to bring up the idea that if Scoots was convicted, to use a George Tenet malapropism, a pardon would be an immediate “slam dunk”.

Tis not the case at all!

Let’s clarify things here a bit.

It is highly likely that while Patrick Fitzgerald remains in his Special Prosecutor role, there will not be a pardon for Scoots.

Why is that?

First, the concern is not about the civil lawsuit that Joe and Valerie Wilson have brought. From what I’ve seen thus far, the Conspirators Defendants are busily stringing out the process in hopes they will run Joe and Valerie out of legal funds to pursue their suit. In addition, even if it went to trial and they were awarded damages, I suspect the Conspirators Defendants are planning to do the ol’ OJ “I got no money” rope-a-dope to prevent any shekels changing hands.

Second, the Conspirators ain’t in the least concerned about any ol’ Congressional investigation. After all Deadeye has said and done to reject any and all Congressional interference oversight in regard to his dark deeds done as President-in-all-but-name, what makes anyone think that Deadeye is going to meekly surrender to a Congressional investigation of the Plame Betrayal. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen!

No, the real reason that we ain’t gonna see a pardon for Scoots while Patrick Fitzgerald remains in his Special Prosecutor role is the very simple reality that Scoots would immediately be dragged by his sorry ass right back into Fitzgerald’s Grand Jury.

Scoots would no longer have any 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, nor would he be able to stand mute.

Scoots would have to tell all about the Conspiracy and his fellow Conspirators who betrayed Valerie Plame, and he would have to tell it truthfully, unless he wanted to find himself in the pokey for Contempt of Court or Perjury.

Folks, the unassailable lay of the land here is that the Conspirators, and in particular, the Head Conspirator simply cannot afford to pardon Scoots while Fitz is still on the loose in power.

A pardon for Scoots ain’t about the politics and it ain’t about Junya’s miserable JAR “which ain’t ever gonna rise again so let’s pardon Scoots”.

It is everything about the ongoing criminal jeopardy facing the rest of the Conspirators! The only thing these rats fear is a honest, can’t-be-intimidated, on-the-prowl Special Prosecutor who believes that the Rule of Law applys to everyone.

There ain’t no place to hide from a prosecutor like Fitz; not in the White House, not in any of Deadeye’s bunkers.

So there ain’t gonna be a pardon for Scoots unless or until Fitzgerald hangs up his Special Prosecutor spurs.

Now as to whether Abu Gonzales can successfully fire retire Fitz ala a “Saturday Night Massacre”, well that’s a whole ‘nother paranoiafrisson-inducing thread…*g*

Eli @
49

Valley Girl @ 45

Eli #38- obviously not as well as might be expected, but the discussion at the end of today, Walton report tomorrow, made me wonder if they hadn’t managed a minor sleight of hand.

As I read Marcy’s blogging, it sounded like Walton was quite p*ssed-off about it. If it was chicanery then wouldn’t Walton be the first fooled by it?

I doubt that Fitz’s resources were particularly overextended, but “sleight of hand” is probably more accurate – the whole thing sounded like it was some kind of feint so that Fitz would assume that Libby would take the stand, and strategize accordingly (and incorrectly).

Griffin @
41

A footnote to Jane’s description of the ‘Perry Mason moment’ above:

Hannah had given an extensive, detailed view of how Libby was a super bigshot. Finally (From Emptywheel’s live-blogging)
“Fitz up!!!!
Fitz: Scope of Chief of Staff as you understood it. Part of it was to protect the Office of the Vice President and VP from public criticism.
The Year of Iran (TYOI = Hannah): It’s not the formulation I would use, Need to go out and truthfully defend office from unfair criticism.
Fitz: Especially important if it was directed at integrity of VP or OVP, and integrity of Admin, OVP, VP, in terms of Iraq.�
TYOI: It would be important to pushback, yes. [he’s a lot more reluctant]
Fitz: Best time to see Libby was evening, particularly if you focus July 6.� Fair to say during that week, if you said, ‘Tomorrow morning let’s take an hour or two to go out for coffee,’ he wouldn’t take that time.
TYOI: It would be harder.
Fitz: If he gave someone an hour or two, it was something Libby thought was important?
TYOI: WRT me, yes.”

At this point a Marshall sitting next to me at the back of the courtroom said, half to himself, half to me, “Pat buried him in one question!”

And Fitz could see precisely that he’d have to sit about for about two hours to ask that one question. It didn’t matter how much the slathered the chocolate on that t*rd ~ he only needed to pose that one question!

OH…and you don’t think the jury didn’t notice how Hannah tried to sway the jury by revising Fitz’s question! “It’s not the formulation I would use…need rto go out and TRUTHFULLY DEFEND…blah, blah, blah.

When Libby claims he told those reporters what Russert said about “Wilson’s wife” did he bother to factcheck that? Did he bother to go to the CIA…and find out if she were actually employed there…and thereby discover she was CLASSIFIED!

Oh, but that conversation was simply something he made up…so how could he!

Marion in Savannah @
48

Forgive me, OT, but YES!!! The springer spaniel won Best in Show at Westminster. YEEHAH!

I heard that Wells had a entrant in the show as well…but it was discovered to be a pig in lipstick!

I think there are reasonable (not great, but reasonable) odds that, if Libby is convicted, Walton will remand him to custody at sentencing. Why? First, because Walton has gone out of his way to accomodate the defense, so he’s not going to feel that Libby has much of a chance with his appeals. Second, Fitz will point out that Libby has just been convicted of obstructing an ongoing investigation, and if Libby wants to remain silent during his appeals, and thereby continue to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he should have to do so in prison. I think there’s only about a 1 in 4 chance of this happening, but I still think it’s well within the realm of possibility. Why does eveyone else seem to think it’s so unlikely?

Things got a bit more brutal for Team Libby with juror questioning when one juror wanted to know how Scooter, being as horribly memory-challenged as he appears to be, could do a job that was so sensitive and important. The jury sounds, based on their questions, like they’re getting a bit cynical.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! The jury gets it! They weren’t bamboozled by Wells’ Pile-On-The-Bullcrap Defense!

This is why Wells is throwing in the towel: He knows he’s fucked, and there’s no sense in bringing in either Libby or Cheney at this point, not now. They’ll be saved up for the appeals process.

The Nefarious Leslie @
68

Valley Girl @
32

joel- from what I’ve read at FDL, Walton decides which jury questions to ask. No indication from the comments I’ve seen as to whether or not pros/ def gets to see them or weigh in, but I’ve assumed not. Anyone?

VG, I could be wrong, but I remember reading during the first week of the trial, in one of Marcy’s summaries, that defense and Fitz’s team got to look over the questions along with Walton, though only he asks them.

Hopefully thatb would only be done AFTER the crossexamination…because otherwise the lawyers could “lead” testimony.

It must be afterwards anyways, because the jurors have to formulate answers based on the testimony. Perhaps it’s difficult to get a “census” of jurors because jurors may ask multiple questions and some may not ask any at all.

But it would be interesting to learn about the process. Do jurors pass over their questions to the bailiff. Wouldn’t that indicate to the lawyers which jurors are asking pesky questions? Maybe Walton has them all pass across cards, including blank ones.

I would really think that it would be problematical if the lawyers were able to monitor what the jury was thinking by the questions, and adjust their case related to that.

But Libby only needs one juror… well maybe several more to avoid appeal and another trial where they will not be able to sneak in questionable evidence and testimony that violated their pre-trial agreements. But I don’t see much from the questions to suggest that any of the approaches that Wells promised in his opening arguments had much traction with the jurors.

One more thought: I don’t think Libby is so much Cheney’s “firewall” as he is the last person Fitz needs to come clean. It’s not like the chain stops at Cheney. We know Libby found out about Plame from Cheney, but we still don’t know who Cheney found out from. Someone had to tell him, and I’m betting that Fitz knows exactly who that someone is. (Tenet?) Whoever it was probably remembers the call. When the person at the other end of the line is Darth Cheney on a rampage, I suspect the memory of it stays with you. You’d probably even tell your co-workers about it, take notes, write a memo, send an e-mail, etc. Someone else may have heard your end of the call. You may have even specifically told him about Plame’s status, and documented that you did so. You can bet your ass Fitz knows. Even if Libby takes a bullet for Cheney, it STILL might not be enough to save him.

Phoenix Woman @ 118

Things got a bit more brutal for Team Libby with juror questioning when one juror wanted to know how Scooter, being as horribly memory-challenged as he appears to be, could do a job that was so sensitive and important. The jury sounds, based on their questions, like they’re getting a bit cynical.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! The jury gets it! They weren’t bamboozled by Wells’ Pile-On-The-Bullcrap Defense!

This is why Wells is throwing in the towel: He knows he’s fucked, and there’s no sense in bringing in either Libby or Cheney at this point, not now. They’ll be saved up for the appeals process.

I suspect that the jury make-up is coming into play, too. This is not the kind of crap that a married woman is going to buy. She’s going to put her foot down and say, “You’re NOT too busy, and you didn’t ‘just forget’. I just made dinner and did the dishes. It’s your turn to get up off your ass and take out the damn garbage.” I think that all of Wells’ talk about “the wife” is going to really backfire here.

Frank Probst @ 117

I think there are reasonable (not great, but reasonable) odds that, if Libby is convicted, Walton will remand him to custody at sentencing. Why? First, because Walton has gone out of his way to accomodate the defense, so he’s not going to feel that Libby has much of a chance with his appeals. Second, Fitz will point out that Libby has just been convicted of obstructing an ongoing investigation, and if Libby wants to remain silent during his appeals, and thereby continue to obstruct an ongoing investigation, he should have to do so in prison. I think there’s only about a 1 in 4 chance of this happening, but I still think it’s well within the realm of possibility. Why does eveyone else seem to think it’s so unlikely?

Because, as someone mentioned, there are two considerations at sentencing–flight, and a documented threat to the community. It’s why white-collar criminals get treated differently than others. They are presumed to have the money to mount an effective appeal and therefore have less incentive to flee, and they aren’t a threat to the community in the commonly accepted definition.

I would be, frankly, stunned if Walton did not afford Libby post-sentencing appeal bond on his own recognizance, no matter what Walton thought of either Fitzgerald’s arguments against it (which I don’t think Fitzgerald will argue) or his defense’s silly tactics.

montag @
98

stingray @ 54

What if this case really was just one more inexorable step towards the truth of the crime behind underlying motivation?

Do you think Libby will get a 24 month sentence, and be able to sit out in a comfortable place while awaiting appeal?

My guess is that Fitz will demand a great deal more from Walton during closing.

Nope, don’t think so. If Scooter is convicted, he’ll get bail during appeal (and an appeal, preferably before a kindly-disposed DC appeals court, is a certainty). This is a race of sorts–that Scooter can stay out of jail until the last moment of Bush’s presidency, when a pardon won’t have much political impact. Unless Scooter goes to jail, there’s no pressure from the conviction itself.

Now, as far as other charges, Fitzgerald could have indicted Armitage, but he didn’t–Armitage’s explanation was that he didn’t know Plame was covert–that exempted him from prosecution under IIPA. Rove has probably said the same thing in the GJ.

The only thing left is conspiracy–and if none of them knew at the time that Plame was covert, then there’s no ultimate crime of conspiracy, because they weren’t conspiring to break the law. It falls into the category of a very bad political dirty trick that had unintended consequences, given the way the IIPA was written.

About all that can happen from now on is administrative–having their clearances stripped from them for violating the terms of their SF-312s…..

Is Fitzgerald going to be able to prove that Shooter headed the conspiracy to violate the IIPA and out an agent for political purposes? My guess is no. Not without Libby saying so, and that’s not going to happen if Libby can stay out of jail.

I think that focussing on the IIPA may cut out other charges that Fitz can bring forth. Note that Fitz could use the release of information on classified materials (documents that contained Top Secret and the “magic codeword”)…which meant that it contained information ON COVERT OPERATIONS AND OPERATIVES.

He elicited this information about the “magic codeword” that is itself always redacted from the lips of Scooter himself during Grand Jury testimony. If the “leakers” obtained any of their information about Wilson or his wife from such documents…well they knew that the information was CLASSIFIED and dealt with COVERT OPS and AGENTS!

And we don’t know what Armitage, Cheney, and others testified to before the GJ or the FBI. We do know that Armitage asserted that he “accidently” mentioned “Wilson’s wife” to Novak, at least he said that to the media and to Grossman. But Novak’s and Woodward’s testimony shows that Armi deliberately told both of them about Plames employment at the CIA. He apparently didn’t have any regrets about leaking to Woodward…and then went on to [not] “oops” to Novak. I do wonder how he framed this to the GJ…if he lied to the media and to Grossman?

And Woodward kept his conversation with Armi secret for a year…so it seems that Armi didn’t tell Fitz about it earlier. And we never did learn where Armi got the info. Nor specifically where Cheney did either. But if Fitz’s agents had to get the “memo” from Libby, and the Cheney copy of the Wilson memo from a safe filled with classified documents (and it was marked Secret!) but another one from Cheney…it really makes one wonder how Cheney explained these discrepancies!

Frank Probst @ 120

One more thought: I don’t think Libby is so much Cheney’s “firewall” as he is the last person Fitz needs to come clean. It’s not like the chain stops at Cheney. We know Libby found out about Plame from Cheney, but we still don’t know who Cheney found out from. Someone had to tell him, and I’m betting that Fitz knows exactly who that someone is. (Tenet?) Whoever it was probably remembers the call. When the person at the other end of the line is Darth Cheney on a rampage, I suspect the memory of it stays with you. You’d probably even tell your co-workers about it, take notes, write a memo, send an e-mail, etc. Someone else may have heard your end of the call. You may have even specifically told him about Plame’s status, and documented that you did so. You can bet your ass Fitz knows. Even if Libby takes a bullet for Cheney, it STILL might not be enough to save him.

Then there’s the whole direction to Wolfowitz to leak the parts of the still classified NIE by Cheney/Libby.

All those documents with “Secret /[Redacted]”
The redacted word being so secret that it can’t be released as it signifies a COVERT OOPERATION.

The Pres. memo.

Lots of yummy stuff deeper in the Onion!

I just want to say it: you guys rock. I’ve been reading much of the liveblogging, but these video recaps tie all the complex stuff together and highlight the really cool things, like Fitz nailing Hannah on the point that the meeting with Judy must have been really important for him to take time away from his job like that.

I’m sure both Froomkin and Waas will distinguish themselves in their reporting, but just about everybody else in the media should hang their heads in shame at the piss-poor job they do on real reporting, when it matters, especially compared to the knowledgeable, personable, and accountable reporting we’re seeing here. I think this trial will go down in history as the first time blogs have massively kicked the traditional media’s butt, not on a “gotcha” or sensational scoop, but on day-in, day-out reporting of facts.

Enjoy a drink of something good. You deserve it.

Muzzy @
109

Still puzzling over the jury question to Hannah:

Walton: When Libby had memory lapses, what was done to trigger recall of things discussed

TYOI: He was quite good at remembering ideas and concepts, very bad at figuring out where they came from, how they came to him.

First of all, it’s a good practical question that gives an opportunity for jurors to hear an example, based on Hannah’s personal experience with Libby, that verifies that he has in reality had to trigger his recall. What does he do? He misses an opportunity to appeal to the jury and doesn’t answer the question.

By not answering the jury question and instead taking an opportunity to use something that sounds like rehearsed psycho-babble, I get the feeling the expectation was that Fitz would ask for elaboration on cross that he very well could have been anticipating. What does Fitz do in his cross? He sidesteps all of it, drives a nail, and leaves Hannah grimmacing after he whiffed on the change up.

that’s my unbiased take ;).

I suggested in an earlier post that while, superficially, this might appear to help Libby once the jurors start diuscussing the timeline it actually backfires.

The IDEA and CONCEPT was that Wilson’s wife worked at the CPD in the CIA…who he heard it from was Cheney. So Libby would have remembered the IDEA (the boondoggle) but perhaps not that the VP told him.

That’s why he repeatedly passed it on…to Miller before he met with Russert.

So it would NOT have seemed new or surprising to him HAD Russert told him. He simply would have wondered where he had heard it BEFORE. And unless he has absolutely no memory he would not have attributed that information to Russert just a few hours later when he talked to Rove, the VP, Cooper, Mitchell, etc. There are multiple lies here about recalling incidents that never happened.

cinnamonape at 124 – what gets me about Armitage is why after he had refused to meet with Novak for several years, did he suddenly agree to meet with him, then drop the Wilson’s wife info on him. What did Armitage hope to gain? Was he protecting Powell by showing that State didn’t send Wilson, it was Wilson’s wife who sent him.

State couldn’t have been that upset with Wilson’s op-ed cause Powell didn’t use the 16 words at the UN.

ohioblue @ 127

cinnamonape at 124 – what gets me about Armitage is why after he had refused to meet with Novak for several years, did he suddenly agree to meet with him, then drop the Wilson’s wife info on him. What did Armitage hope to gain? Was he protecting Powell by showing that State didn’t send Wilson, it was Wilson’s wife who sent him.

State couldn’t have been that upset with Wilson’s op-ed cause Powell didn’t use the 16 words at the UN.

And remember [Woodward tape] how he was all over about how the CIA was protecting itself by telling Bush to pull it out of the speech in Cincinnati. On the one hand it seems that he was protecting the CIA and attacking the NSC (Condi) while also going after the lower levels of the CIA.

cinnamonape – Armitage is such a puzzle to me. I believe that in some court filings Fitz called Armitage “the innocent accused.” Marcy’s book came today. I’m anxious to see if she has Armitage figured out.

EPU’d from earlier today

Mad Dogs @113
Since you seem to have a handle on this, I will reask a serious question regarding presidential pardons:

Can an unindicted co-conspirator pardon one of his co-conspirators?
(and would Fizt include Shrub on indictment #2?)

ohioblue @ 127

cinnamonape at 124 – what gets me about Armitage is why after he had refused to meet with Novak for several years, did he suddenly agree to meet with him, then drop the Wilson’s wife info on him. What did Armitage hope to gain? Was he protecting Powell by showing that State didn’t send Wilson, it was Wilson’s wife who sent him.

State couldn’t have been that upset with Wilson’s op-ed cause Powell didn’t use the 16 words at the UN.

Armitage and Rove are better acquainted than is supposed, and Armitage’s reputation–a carefully-cultivated reputation, I might add–is one of a straight shooter. Armitage, to my mind, is one of the neo-cons, a shadow character who operates in government as someone he is not in private. He’s the person who actually does the things that Ledeen only dreams of doing, and leaves no fingerprints.

Tgos @ 130

EPU’d from earlier today

Mad Dogs @113
Since you seem to have a handle on this, I will reask a serious question regarding presidential pardons:

Can an unindicted co-conspirator pardon one of his co-conspirators?
(and would Fizt include Shrub on indictment #2?)

IANAL, so don’t take this as anywhere near gospel.

IMHO, the limitations of a Presidential Pardon have not by any means been fully Constitionally-tested by the Supreme Court.

Assuming an objective Supreme Court (big assumption these days *g*), I can imagine a ruling from them where a unindicted co-conspirator could indeed pardon fellow co-conspirators.

Twould really probably depend on the seriousness of the “crime” in the SC’s minds.

For example, I think they would have no problem with Bush 41’s pardon of the Iran/Contra miscreants since the SC would probably see the underlying “crime” as a pissing match between Congress and the Executive branch.

In the imagined example of a Vice President poisoning his wife, and the President providing the VP with the poison, I would imagine the SC would not allow the un-indicted co-conspirator President to pardon his co-conspirator VP.

Truth be told, there is a whole lot of Constitutional wiggle room in Presidential Pardon powers for stuff to go either way.

Add on top of that a politizied SC, or even worse, a stacked SC, one can imagine all kinds of frightening outcomes.

BTW, here’s the salt shaker. Take my comments with a grain or two. *g*

Jane, Christy, Marcy, and Jeralyn,

I’ll risk EPDing this thread to commend your work. You have done a magnificent job covering the Libby trial and the Plame story overall.

Thank you for your diligence and the best coverage on the Web. Seriously, you folks deserve an award.

Sounds to me like Scooter got his pardon deal worked out with Shooter and W. It must include prospective contempt of congress, too. I doubt he had a deal going into this trial. Looks to me like he played hardball with the Prez and VP and won. Sadly, Fitz is probably not going to be a special prosecutor on this matter much longer.

montag @ 131

Armitage and Rove are better acquainted than is supposed, and Armitage’s reputation–a carefully-cultivated reputation, I might add–is one of a straight shooter. Armitage, to my mind, is one of the neo-cons, a shadow character who operates in government as someone he is not in private. He’s the person who actually does the things that Ledeen only dreams of doing, and leaves no fingerprints.

I’ll second that one, and how.

The Gangster and The Gossipmonger had quite a little tea party together on Friday afternoon, June 13, 2003. The Gossipmonger was so slow on the uptake that the Gangster had to shout the news about the CIA wife the second time, and then repeat it a third time just to make sure the slow-talking midwestern Gossipmonger grasped that he was getting a hot scoop. Finally, just to underline it for good measure the Gangster said it a fourth time, in closing, with an emphatic curse to convey his contempt, for the full benefit of the Gossipmonger. But all for naught. The Gangster had to resort to Plan B and try it all over again, when the first Gossipmonger inexplicably deep-sixed the hot scoop. The second midwestern Gossipmonger got the deed done, with a little extra pushing from good buddy Rove.

2:17 Armitage: “His wife works in the agency.” [The instant Joe Wilson is indirectly mentioned by Woodward]

3:02 Armitage: “Because his wife’s a [redacted curse] analyst at the agency!”

3:05 Armitage: “It–It’s perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.”

3:07 Woodward: “Oh she is.” [Finally getting the message]

3:08 Armitage: “Yeah.”

3:09 Woodward: “Oh, I see.”

3:10 Armitage: “[redacted curse] look at it.”

3:11 Woodward: “Oh I see. I didn’t [redacted curse].”

3:12 Armitage: “Yeah. See?“

3:22 Armitage: “But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [redacted curse]?!”

Yeah – how about that outrageous behavior, Armitage?!? A textbook example of how to blow the cover of a CIA spy with a leak from her own government. But this time, Gangster, you left fingerprints.

Not at all OT, here’s an editorial i call Lancet 2, which reminds us of the human cost of the nasty propaganda and lying while they rain terror in our names.

You’re the “Jane” everyone’s been writing about lately. I’m sorry…this will be a goofy comment but after viewing your last video clip on the Libby trial, I realized that you’re Jane. The Jane who recently had surgery (and, I’m new to FDL, so that’s my excuse) and literaly did get out of your hospital bed for this trial. YOU ARE FABULOUS!!!

Thanks for your “super-hero” efforts!

After parsing through the trial comment threads from the last few weeks, my suspicion is that there are a commentor or two from the Agency and/or close to the prosecution. Possibly using a cut-out of course. I wish i had the time to go back and pick up the examples as cites, but i do have daily responsibilities and probably can’t. I should have done it as i went along, but this realization dawned slowly on me. (Perhaps i’m dense, or way off base.)

anyway, pow wow @ 102 stimulated some thoughts:
The two and a half months of unrelenting, brutal, detailed drudgery that made up the CIPA process, was all about the graymail effort to avoid going to trial, by trying to force a dismissal over classified evidence. Obviously, however, that graymail effort failed completely to reach its goal (though it was nip and tuck for awhile). The con about Libby testifying was vital to that graymail effort, and Libby and Co. played it for all it was worth, and Judge Walton indeed bent over backward to accommodate them. Nevertheless, all the defense money and all the defense lawyers failed in their year-long effort to derail this trial, and we have an extremely dedicated Intelligence Community declassification team and Special Counsel team to thank for that very significant achievement.

Bingo! Then comes a belief that this case was as much about defending Cheney. Then this:

Jane – I really appreciated your take yesterday in the wrap-up video about the rehearsed, unnatural impression Novak’s testimony gave, which you’ve also mentioned in this post. I know I wanted Fitzgerald to just light into that guy on the stand, six ways from Sunday, but realize that that would have been tangential to the charges at hand. Unlike EW, I have to believe that Fitzgerald is not counting on Bob Novak to be a prosecution witness in future – Novak is impossible to believe on anything of substance in this investigation, and would be thoroughly discredited in any intense cross-examination, but I do hope he will somehow yet get publicly exposed and humiliated for the craven political operator and liar that he is.

I’d like to believe that an overarching part of this trial is the court of public opinion, of which the Agency has some familiarity. While i personally believe there is more to come from Team Fitz, possibly because i WANT there to be more to come, i’ll wait to see where this is going.

I think it’s clear to suppose that our counter-proliferation efforts were seriously damaged by the Plame leak, and that it’s not just the mother of twins who’s pissed. I suspect there are incredible battles going on behind the scenes, and we are witnessing only the tip of the iceberg. I only hope it’s the one that will take down Cheney’s Titanic.

I’m biased, because i believe amurka is already “in the last throes” of dying empire, but if there’s to be a chance for a Phoenix to turn it’s piercing eye here, Impeachment and Treason and Prison have to be back on the table.

So many nasty things have been done by the Agency in my lifetime in my name, i would never have thought i would be egging them on to hit the dinger and drive amurka back to life. But then we’ve never faced an enemy of such vile deceit. And they, or at least the faction Amb. Wilson’s wife represents, represent one of our last bastions of hope for a return to freedom and democracy.

Take it to the bank that Congressmen Waxman and Conyers are not operating in a vacuum. And Team Fitz, even if i’m an idiot and you’re acting on your own, please don’t stop here. To have my faith in democracy restored, i need to see some bad people squirm.

Crazy Horse @ 138

After parsing through the trial comment threads from the last few weeks, my suspicion is that there are a commentor or two from the Agency and/or close to the prosecution. Possibly using a cut-out of course. I wish i had the time to go back and pick up the examples as cites, but i do have daily responsibilities and probably can’t. I should have done it as i went along, but this realization dawned slowly on me. (Perhaps i’m dense, or way off base.)

anyway, pow wow @ 102 stimulated some thoughts:
The two and a half months of unrelenting, brutal, detailed drudgery that made up the CIPA process, was all about the graymail effort to avoid going to trial, by trying to force a dismissal over classified evidence. Obviously, however, that graymail effort failed completely to reach its goal (though it was nip and tuck for awhile). The con about Libby testifying was vital to that graymail effort, and Libby and Co. played it for all it was worth, and Judge Walton indeed bent over backward to accommodate them. Nevertheless, all the defense money and all the defense lawyers failed in their year-long effort to derail this trial, and we have an extremely dedicated Intelligence Community declassification team and Special Counsel team to thank for that very significant achievement.

Bingo! Then comes a belief that this case was as much about defending Cheney. Then this:

Jane – I really appreciated your take yesterday in the wrap-up video about the rehearsed, unnatural impression Novak’s testimony gave, which you’ve also mentioned in this post. I know I wanted Fitzgerald to just light into that guy on the stand, six ways from Sunday, but realize that that would have been tangential to the charges at hand. Unlike EW, I have to believe that Fitzgerald is not counting on Bob Novak to be a prosecution witness in future – Novak is impossible to believe on anything of substance in this investigation, and would be thoroughly discredited in any intense cross-examination, but I do hope he will somehow yet get publicly exposed and humiliated for the craven political operator and liar that he is.

I’d like to believe that an overarching part of this trial is the court of public opinion, of which the Agency has some familiarity. While i personally believe there is more to come from Team Fitz, possibly because i WANT there to be more to come, i’ll wait to see where this is going.

I think it’s clear to suppose that our counter-proliferation efforts were seriously damaged by the Plame leak, and that it’s not just the mother of twins who’s pissed. I suspect there are incredible battles going on behind the scenes, and we are witnessing only the tip of the iceberg. I only hope it’s the one that will take down Cheney’s Titanic.

I’m biased, because i believe amurka is already “in the last throes” of dying empire, but if there’s to be a chance for a Phoenix to turn it’s piercing eye here, Impeachment and Treason and Prison have to be back on the table.

So many nasty things have been done by the Agency in my lifetime in my name, i would never have thought i would be egging them on to hit the dinger and drive amurka back to life. But then we’ve never faced an enemy of such vile deceit. And they, or at least the faction Amb. Wilson’s wife represents, represent one of our last bastions of hope for a return to freedom and democracy.

Take it to the bank that Congressmen Waxman and Conyers are not operating in a vacuum. And Team Fitz, even if i’m an idiot and you’re acting on your own, please don’t stop here. To have my faith in democracy restored, i need to see some bad people squirm.

We are all now part of this tapistry…However My deep fear is the wheels of gov.are moveing too slow to stop the group of neocon/facist who,if not stopped, will destroy our country
Fitz is doing his part ,as only a truly rightous man can do…and their are many,now, who have the power to put the brakes to the powerfull forces bush and cheny have unleashed.But it takes time,and time I fear is something in short supply.I’ll say it again,We hit Iran,life as we have known it in America will be finished.Bush and cheny are so full of hubris it would be absurd theater if it wasnt tragic reality.My fear is a power grab,martial law,and a end to the world we know.This will end badly,if we dont see a LOT of bad people squirm

Armitage (government) and Woodward (media) are perfect examples of things gone/going wrong in our country.

I think Tenet’s right-hand man McLaughlin may have given away the store (Mrs. Wilson’s status) to a bombastic Cheney. Sad to even think that.

Spaghetti defense. Heh. Funny.

Funnier yet to think they spent millions on this, and on Babs Comstock as part of the deal. What’s the ROI on Babs anyhow?

But funniest yet to think that Jane scared the bejabbers out of Scooter-n-Shooter, to the point where they won’t testify.

lectric lady @ 58

I am going to have 2 MAJOR withdrawl problems next week:

#1 No more end of the trial day videos summing up, so perfectly, what happened. I don’t know how you do it without very extensive editing.

#2 Al Franken leaving Air America. I listen to him every day while repeating over and over, “Do NOT hit F5 yet, do NOT hit F5 yet” for the latest trial update.

What I am really going to miss about the loss of Franken is his very intelligent interviews with the experts that I so highly respect. Where will we hear Oliphant now? or Ornstein? I am really depressed about this.

Anybody else?

I agree with you absolutely. Plus Joe Conason and Lawrence O’Donnell. I have enjoyed hearing voices that were so authentically honest sounding. The difference between Joe Conason and a Judy Miller or a Timmeh is so stark. The thing I enjoyed about O’Donnell is his insider’s knowledge of how Congress actually works.

The Live Blogging is so addictive. How on earth will I feed that craving next week? Oh dear, oh dear. ;-)

MadDog@113– Haven’t you noticed what’s been going on with U.S. Attorneys all over the country? The junta has been firing them right and left. I fear that as soon as Scoots is convicted, Mr. Fitzgerald will be shown the door. Democrats will complain but then the Mighty Wurlitzer Right Wing Noise Machine will go into overdrive claiming “No underlying crime here!!! Overzealous prosecutor here!!” And that, as they say, will be that. The only possible way to save any further investigation is for Congress to take it over — and given the courage those cowardly lions have shown over the Iraq debate, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I came into this late – just before the trial, not through lack of interest, I just didn’t know all this wonderful linkage was out here. The blogging has been terrific, so much knowledge and nous, kudos to you all – and to Jane especially for strength and grace under pressure – and a wow-smile bonus! And Marcy! And Jeralyn! “They” fired prosecutors still in the middle of sensitive investigations, so I for one am nervous. To dodge aside, couple of days ago on thenexthurrah I asked if anyone had thought any more about the tantalizing “sealed vs sealed” document Fitz showed us. Nobody noticed. So I ask again, here, in high hopes still for the va-va-voom, what could it signify?

I can’t imagine that Scooter isn’t going to get a pardon instead of Cheney’s testimony.

Okay, let’s say Scooter gets convicted.

In the search for who is culpable for outing a NOC CIA agent the issue most discussed in this thread is who KNEW she was a NOC, rather than just an analyst whom ‘everybody knew’ worked for the CIA.

Of course, Cheney found out somewhere along the way she was involved in sending Joe Wilson to Niger. I’d suppose he found out she was NOC at that time too.

When did others in the White House learn she was NOC? What did they know and when did they know it?

Is it possible Cheney would’ve found out and NOT told the other leakers or “The Prez”?

There’s probably some kind of paper trail involved here, but some would just be personal notes (like the op-ed with notes written on it) which indicated a conversation. It could be hard to pin down specifically when (or if) one person told another one she was NOC and that it wouldn’t be wise ot leak her identity after learning that.

There is also the more-or-less objective testimony of those to whom it was leaked. If they say they were specifically told she worked at the CIA it’s one thing, but if they were told she was covert, then there’s a case. And, if they were told she was covert, then one could expect Fitz to be questioning the leaker as to when and how they first learned she was covert. The loose thread ends could be followed back to the ‘leaker-in-chief’.

Eli @ 49

Valley Girl @ 45

Eli #38- obviously not as well as might be expected, but the discussion at the end of today, Walton report tomorrow, made me wonder if they hadn’t managed a minor sleight of hand.

I doubt that Fitz’s resources were particularly overextended, but “sleight of hand” is probably more accurate – the whole thing sounded like it was some kind of feint so that Fitz would assume that Libby would take the stand, and strategize accordingly (and incorrectly).

No, the CIPA hearings were an incredible amount of work for Team Fitz and the relvant agency lawyers. For every hour of work Team Irving did for those hearings. Team Fitz and the agency lawyers probaly did 20 0r 30 hours.

This was just a pure greymail ploy