Fitz-o-rama

Zero X 2!

empty wheel!

I object to all of Condi’s appearances on Stephanpolous.

Does stipulate mean there will be nothing from Fitz to spin/rebut these items?

Jeffress: Transcript of Condi’s appearance on Stephanopoulous on ABC.

Fitz: No objection.

I wouldn’t object either, I don’t see how a transcript of another liar, lying on another TeeVee show really helps a defendant charged with lying. But then again, IANAL!

All these stipulations have me feeling constipulated.

I just figured out the defense! The comment above helped me see. They (the defense) are trying to “de-criminalize” lying by proving that it is the norm. Kind of a step beyond that other right wing nut fantasy of the criminalization of politics (unless it has to do with blow jobs).

Go get ‘Em Fitz!!!!

In a (probably futile) attempt to pre-empt a lot of questions and answers:

Presidential pardons:

1925 SCOTUS ruling that a person does not have to “accept” a pardon for it to be in effect.

Preznit can issue pardons any time except in case of impeachment. Can’t pardon his own self, iow.

Under the “pardon”, clemency is granted for CRIMINAL punishment – fines, prison time, etc. And it’s ONLY criminal related stuff – prez. pards. have nothing to do with civil cases.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly,

whig says

.. such a pardon does not protect a person from giving future testimony to a grand jury, petit jury or the congress under the penalty of perjury for false statements. Moreover, a pardoned individual cannot raise a legitimate fifth amendment defense against self-incrimination with respect to the pardoned acts, but must testify truthfully to all that is known as one under a grant of prosecutorial immunity.

ObDisclaimer: IANAL, I found the above through a bit of research and I personally think they were reliable sources. But WTF do I know?

theExile @ 5

Jeffress: Transcript of Condi’s appearance on Stephanopoulous on ABC.

Fitz: No objection.

I wouldn’t object either, I don’t see how a transcript of another liar, lying on another TeeVee show really helps a defendant charged with lying. But then again, IANAL!

Don’t tell us that this is a video of the psillosibin cloud morphing into a smoking gun spiel!

Looking ahead, I can only imagine what the traffic at FDL will be like when word goes out that the jury has reached a verdict and is preparing to announce.

Also, I like the Cheney picture. I think it is important to keep tying this story to Cheney. Visuals are part of that effort. Pictures of Libby and Cheney together are great too.

jeffreyw @
4

Does stipulate mean there will be nothing from Fitz to spin/rebut these items?

Um, what was there for him to rebut?

So, closing arguments start on Tuesday, and the jury will get the case by mid-week. Cool.

Will closing arguments be tomorrow or Tuesday? Walton had said Tuesday, thinking defense will rest Thursday.

EW: Do you know?

Wow. What staying power: behold the maja blog. I am grateful, checks in the mail, really. The Plame matter is why I come over here to FDL. It feels like a kind of end. I know we have argument next week and then who knows. Maybe I will yet work again.

Loved Walton’s comment: These articles do not reflect the truth (especially that WSJ bullshit).

What will the jury think of Libby’s failure to speak?

They mailed the defense in. It really was not a defense, but just the appearance of a defense.
When the real bullets were about to fly, as is his custom, the Shooter had “other priorities.”

If called, I hope the briefers are asked whether or not they had to give the same briefing day after day after day until Libby could remember :)

hey Scooter: stip you later!

And may the cell guard strip you later!

Thank you emptywheel, firedoglake, christy, and jane for a great service provided that I believe will change the world for the better. You all were the first. These days and this time will be remembered for a lot of things but I think your contribution is more than a little significant.

thanks again. heather

I don’t think there’s a person alive that thought this trial would be this short

let’s hope deliberations are too short for libby to cop a plea

EPU’d from prior thread:

Marcy/Christy et al —

How much do you think the Judge will hamper the defense’s ability to raise the “Libby just forgot” defense now that Scooter is not testifying through the jury instructions. I was under the impression that the Judge commented earlier that if Scooter did not testify, there would be no faulty memory defense.

The Judge has obviously backed off from that a bit now, but there have to be some limitations placed in the jury instructions so that the jury does not engage in sheer speculation. If I were Fitz, I’d be preparing a motion for a directed verdict on that defense as insufficiently supported by competent and admissible evidence.

Also, will there be instructions designed to blunt the defense’s obvious efforts to appeal for jury nullification? The scapegoat defense is just that now that there is no evidence to support Wells’ statements during Opening.

Finally, while I understand that the 5th Amendment precludes the Govt’ from using Libby’s failure to take the stand as any inference of guilt, why can’t they take promises made by the defense during Opening and show that no such evidence was ever provided by them at trial. It seems a mighty fine line to walk to me, but then again I am only a civil litigator.

Miss P. @ 19

If called, I hope the briefers are asked whether or not they had to give the same briefing day after day after day until Libby could remember :)

Ooops. Guess they won’t be called. But had they been…

Re “not for the truth” — for the benefit of those who are NAL, this phrase is legal code that the statements are not hearsay. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Thus, out-of-court statements (such as assertions in news reports) admitted “not for the truth” are admitted strictly to prove some fact other than what is asserted in the statement, such as the effect hearing the statement would have had on the hearer’s state of mind, or just the fact that the statement was made, regardless of its truth.

CNN (I know, I know – who has a clue if it is true!) just reported that the denfense has rested but that Judge Walton tore Wells et al a new asshole for not putting Scooter on the stand. Is not going to allow any discussion of how forgetful poor little Scooter is since he didn’t take stand after Walton has ruled on issues based on that assumption. Wolf said the Judge was Po’d.

theExile @
7

They (the defense) are trying to “de-criminalize” lying by proving that it is the norm.

This reminds me of the very ending of last night’s episode of “Frontline” on PBS where they covered Plame. At the end, some bloke said, “well, we can’t make it criminal because everybody does it. This is how Washington works.” Or something to that effect.(?) That PBS would choose that note to end on was surprising, to say the least.

Closing arguments Tuesday. Go get ‘em Fitz and co!

“Wells; The defense rests”

I will again ask: THIS is a $5 million defense? They let Fitz rest his case–going into a weekend–with Timmeh calling Scooter a liar, and now they rest their own case after (a) having Fitz skewer their best witness, (b) wasting time on boring and irrelevant stipulations, and (c) not putting their client up. I’m no lawyer, but as a layman, I can tell you that as a potential jury member, I want to hear a reasonable story. A good story does not end with your best witness being eviscerated, a long laundry list of extraneous facts, and your client unexpectedly not taking the stand.

If Jeralyn is here, I’d love to hear your take on this. My feeling is that, just for the theater of it, they should have tried to end on some sort of positive note. Couldn’t they find ONE PERSON with something positive to say in Libby’s defense who wouldn’t be torn up on cross?

so, could the judge instruct the jury that evidence had been allowed which the should have only heard if libby were to testify and then tell the jury which evidence they are not to consider in deliberations?

Epitaph on the tombstone of Irving Lewis Libby:

“I think I don’t remember – but don’t quote me on that”

T. O’Krsa @ 26

CNN (I know, I know – who has a clue if it is true!) just reported that the denfense has rested but that Judge Walton tore Wells et al a new asshole for not putting Scooter on the stand. Is not going to allow any discussion of how forgetful poor little Scooter is since he didn’t take stand after Walton has ruled on issues based on that assumption. Wolf said the Judge was Po’d.

I have wondered whether contempt and some kind of fine would be a remedy for this, though it does not go to the matter at hand which stands as presented, it would send a message that Walton expects honesty from those who serve as his officers.

Jane, Christy, Marcy-

I wish that Cheney & Libby had their time in the witness stand and you could have witnessed it live. No doubt the sentancing phase when it arrives will make up for it.

old gold @
18

They mailed the defense in. It really was not a defense, but just the appearance of a defense.
When the real bullets were about to fly, as is his custom, the Shooter had “other priorities.”

Nothing up this sleeve, nothing up the other. Now, we frantically wave one hand, then the other hand and finally, both hands together. You will notice that the Veep remained protected throughout the performance.

theExile — heh. You have a point there about criminalization/decriminalization as a defense by the right-wing. Too bad their choice of crim/decrim telegraphs their position; too much of something on their side? decriminalize it. Too little? criminalize it.

Bravo to our intrepid, dogged Marcy and the rest of Team FireDogLake. A round of beers for everybody!!!

Just to clarify: these stipulations were read to the jury, correct?

I’m surprised the defense didn’t call Eckenrode to the stand. Is it just me?

Frank Probst @
28

Couldn’t they find ONE PERSON with something positive to say in Libby’s defense who wouldn’t be torn up on cross?

Apparently, NO. And what message does THAT send to the jury?

I think the defense is hoping to have any conviction(s) overturned on appeal. That was the best they could do with a liar for a client.

oxide @ 26

theExile @
7

They (the defense) are trying to “de-criminalize” lying by proving that it is the norm.

This reminds me of the very ending of last night’s episode of “Frontline” on PBS where they covered Plame. At the end, some bloke said, “well, we can’t make it criminal because everybody does it. This is how Washington works.” Or something to that effect.(?) That PBS would choose that note to end on was surprising, to say the least.

Even worse was the part of that statement that Joe Wilson just needs to learn to take his lumps, that what happened to him (no mention of what happened to Valerie and her work at CIA) is just the way the game is played in DC. Sort of a Mama’s Boy meme. In other words, no crime, just a pol who couldn’t role with the political punches. I was gobsmacked.

so what’s up with some kind of sealed indictment?

what happens with that?

I would think that all the pretrial work around classified material could have been done on a representation of Libby reserving his right to testimony rather than on an affirmaitve affirmation that he would testify.

Hey Christy, LHP and other legal eagles–

If Scooter is found guilty of lying when he said he didn’t leak classified information, does that mean Fitz could then go back after him and deal with the actual leak issue, and get the whole “declassifying on the fly” issue brought into court?

My thought is that he gave Ari pig-in-a-poke immunity for some reason, and his testimony in this case doesn’t seem like it’s worth what Fitz paid for it. He ain’t stupid; he’s almost certainly got grander plans for Ari coming.

Maybe the defense will claim that Libby is so forgetful, he forgot that he said he would testify?

Are Wells, et al, at risk of reprimand by Walton (post trial) or by the bar association for tricking the court by representing that Libby would testify?

Just looking at the general weakness of the defense – a half-dozen journalists called to testify that they didn’t hear about Plame from Libby, and a goernment official to testify that Libby had a really really busy job – vs. the defense’s opening statements threatening to drag Karl Rove through the mud, does anyone else get the feeling that, well…

Were the opening statements a gambit to force a pardon promise from the administration, and did it work?

It sure looks that way here.

Actually I am glad that WSJ piece goes to the Jury — but since I believe that information was swiped from one of my posts at Daily Kos way back when this all began, I think someone ought to consider providing all Kos to the Jury.

The situation was this — Mentor Blades posted David Corn’s The Nation piece bringing forward the possibility that outing Plame may have been a violation of the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982. At the time, I was in the midst of reading John Prados “Lost Crusader” a bio of William Colby — and Prados had included some interesting detail about why GHWBush tried to get the Intelligence Identities Act passed in 1976 when he headed the CIA, and why in 1982 he took it as a first task when he became VP. But there is much more to it, because it was not Phillip Agee who was responsible for the outing of Richard Welch, the CIA Station Chief in Athens who had been murdered, and who’s murder was the motivation for Bush’s legislative interest — what happened is that once the Berlin Wall came down, and Stasi archives fell into Journalistic as well as other intelligence agency hands, it became clear that outing Welch had been a Stasi operation. To make matters more interesting, Barbara Bush wrote a book after the Stasi involvement was known, and she continued to blame Agee — so he sued her and won. She had to pay, and change her manuscript. Anyhow, Blades frontpaged my historical update on all the assumptions involved here, and that was what got me into following Plame. Now I have always thought that the Wall Street Journal ripped off from Kos, — for that reason I think the Jury should see all of Kos too. (kidding of course)

Seems to me that the $5m defence was all about raising grounds for appeal. Which is quite a smart strategy, since you get to bill for all of that appellant time.

What’s the stipulation Fitz is having read now?

Cheney’s Nightmare @
17

What will the jury think of Libby’s failure to speak?

That the only reporter that Libby is actually accused of tipping off about Mrs. Wilson was Judy Miller who never wrote a story on the issue?

Noting that the stipulation read by the defense re: Eckenrode does not clearly state that Russert told Eckenrode what Libby said in the conversation regarding Wilson and Plame.

Doesn’t this mean that when the defense implied that Libby may have discussed Wilson with Russert in this conversation, they may or may not have been accurate? I would think that if they had proof in the Eckenrode notes that Russert and Libby did discuss Wilson, they would have brought it up.

Again, IANAL, I am just trying to imagine what the jury might be thinking. It seems like the defense is asking the jury to make a leap of logic that Russert would have discussed at least Wilson, if not Plame, in the phone convo w/Scooter. Yet, they provide no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

Curious if I’m missing something, or if others see this the same way or differently than I do.

Final Juror Question: At the time Libby was testifying to the Grand Jury, were his lips moving?

pseudonymous in nc @ 47

Seems to me that the $5m defence was all about raising grounds for appeal. Which is quite a smart strategy, since you get to bill for all of that appellant time.

Wells is a Democrat, right? I hope he’s chortling all the way to the bank. The fact that the money is coming straight from big Republican donors must be some fine icing on the cake.

willytex @ 48

That the only reporter that Libby is actually accused of tipping off about Mrs. Wilson was Judy Miller who never wrote a story on the issue?

Sorry, irrelevant two-year-old talking point, and it’s starting to stink. Please get new ones.

Frank Probst @ 51

Wells is a Democrat, right? I hope he’s chortling all the way to the bank. The fact that the money is coming straight from big Republican donors must be some fine icing on the cake.

I don’t think Wells’ affiliation matters much here. I honestly believe the chosen strategy was to handle discovery and the trial in a way that would force Judge Walton into rulings that they could then take to appeal. They’re not creating a record for a jury, but for an appellant panel.

Guilty, all charges, and then some! Sit your ass in jail Irving, and think about what you’ve done. Research your appeals from the law library like all the other innocent convicts in the joint (I say this as an ex-con.)

Woodhall Hollow @ 39

… I was gobsmacked.

I didn’t hear it, but had I, I wouldn’t have been surprised in the slightest. I gave up on PBS a long time ago when it got Bushwhacked by Tomlinson.

NPR too. A waste of spectrum, both of ‘em.

Air America Radio for me, TYVM. Oh, and (((PoliticsTV/FDL!)))

Well, it was hand-to-hand combat (outside the presence of the jury and in briefings, at least) down to the wire, but what a splendid job of ruling Judge Walton did today. Even through the non-transcript liveblog, Walton’s clear and spot-on decision against “Mr. Graymail” Cline’s efforts to manipulate the CIPA process and its declassified evidence, was apparent. I’m very glad Judge Walton hit the sweet spot on that one, because the CIPA process absolutely was played like a “game” by the Libby defense, and they needed to be called out on it, as a warning in part to future defendants.

I thought the other decisions Judge Walton made today were also right down the middle, straight and true, and both well-reasoned and supported. Thanks in large part to the vigorous advocacy of Special Counsel Fitzgerald today (for which Tim Russert for one ought to be grateful), the government got the best of some key arguments, and deserved to, on the day the Scooter Libby defense rested.

Happy Valentine’s Day, one and all.

pseudonymous in nc @ 51

willytex @ 48

That the only reporter that Libby is actually accused of tipping off about Mrs. Wilson was Judy Miller who never wrote a story on the issue?

Sorry, irrelevant two-year-old talking point, and it’s starting to stink. Please get new ones.

here’s what the neo fascists don’t want to understand;

libby is acused of deliberately preventing the prosecuter from finding out who committed treason

Tucker Carlson may be trying to console his Daddy about now.

WRT to the three articles just introduced:

Were they read to the jury in order to show (from a defense perspective) that this whole thing was no big deal, and therefore, Scooter wasn’t worried and thus had no reason to lie? I’m confused as to what other purpose this would serve. There were plenty of articles written from a less conservative view that this was a big deal.

Damiani – Even if Libby is, SOMEHOW, found not guilty, Fitz can still bring any other charge(s). The only thing this trial cuts off (short of a hung jury) would be the government’s ability to retry Libby on the same specific charges (and there are other principals of law that may prevent the gov’t from bringing similar charges relating to other alleged incidents of lying/obstruction in the same investigation – but that would require a really long post) – that’s when “double” jeapardy applies.

And, interestingly (or not if you never plan on committing a crime), if Libby is convicted, AND then, say, there is a conspiracy or other charge, double jeapardy does not prevent the gov’t from using those acts/convictions as evidence in support of the new charges – that is not double jeapardy. Shorter me: the gov’t can double dip.

What no breaking news on the TEEVEE that the defense rests? To busy gossiping about Anna. Thanks EW FDL Jeralyn and Fitz. My book has finally arrived. Anatomy of DECEIT Yippee

PBS is run by corporate thugs. I has no interest in the truth.

pow wow @ 57

Well, it was hand-to-hand combat (outside the presence of the jury and in briefings, at least) down to the wire, but what a splendid job of ruling Judge Walton did today. Even through the non-transcript liveblog, Walton’s clear and spot-on decision against “Mr. Graymail” Cline’s efforts to manipulate the CIPA process and its declassified evidence, was apparent. I’m very glad Judge Walton hit the sweet spot on that one, because the CIPA process absolutely was played like a “game” by the Libby defense, and they needed to be called out on it, as a warning in part to future defendants.

I thought the other decisions Judge Walton made today were also right down the middle, straight and true, and both well-reasoned and supported. Thanks in large part to the vigorous advocacy of Special Counsel Fitzgerald today (for which Tim Russert for one ought to be grateful), the government got the best of some key arguments, and deserved to, on the day the Scooter Libby defense rested.

Happy Valentine’s Day, one and all.

Thanks pow wow, especially for the preceptive comments.

willytex @ 49

Nobody claimed that Libby was any good at his job

upseudonymous in nc @ 53

willytex @ 48

That the only reporter that Libby is actually accused of tipping off about Mrs. Wilson was Judy Miller who never wrote a story on the issue?

Sorry, irrelevant two-year-old talking point, and it’s starting to stink. Please get new ones.

Actually, this trial brought out the fact that Libby was the person who told Ari, who then spread the news. Ari was used.

Libby did not tell Ari all the details about Valerie, though, he told him it was “hush, hush”. This was the one and only time that Libby had ever had a lunch with Ari, and Libby was the one to set up the meeting.

pseudonymous in nc @ 54

Frank Probst @ 51

Wells is a Democrat, right? I hope he’s chortling all the way to the bank. The fact that the money is coming straight from big Republican donors must be some fine icing on the cake.

I don’t think Wells’ affiliation matters much here. I honestly believe the chosen strategy was to handle discovery and the trial in a way that would force Judge Walton into rulings that they could then take to appeal. They’re not creating a record for a jury, but for an appellant panel.

Agreed – I’d imagine Wells wants to do the best he can to represent his client(s) interests. This isn’t about political revenge – it’s about doing the best he can to create a case based on planting reasonable doubt in a juror’s mind. Simultaneously, it’s about laying the groundwork for appeals, and also perhaps getting more info out of Team Fitz and the prosecution witnesses to help predict what else might be coming down the pipes.

LandOfTheFree @ 67

Simultaneously, it’s about laying the groundwork for appeals, and also perhaps getting more info out of Team Fitz and the prosecution witnesses to help predict what else might be coming down the pipes.

Just an observation – I imagine that Fitz was likewise using the trial as an opportunity to gather more information.

Which may ultimately be why Libby and Cheney opted not to testify.

Fitzgerald could have used their testimony in court to further develop any other charges against them that he already has in his back pocket.

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defended and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

Which they then should have gone through, catalogued, and gone over with their client, in triplicate. If there were materials that the government introduced at trial that they had not seen — the time to object to their admission was AT THE TIME THEY WERE MOVED, and not on the back end. That’s just incredibly brazen to try and object after the fact. You are required to object in a timely fashion, not days later.

I didn’t see anything in the comments about this, but I skimmed, so I may have missed it. If so, sorry.

How usual/unusual is it for one side or the other to try to remove submitted evidence AFTER both sides have rested. That is what happened, isn’t it? That seems really weird to me, and Fitz seemed pretty amazed as well.

I keep thinking that the lie about Scooter taking the stand was just that a lie and a ploy to see how much dirt they had on Shooter, and anybody else.

IIRC, Egregious said that Sealed vs Sealed was on the schedule on the courtroom door for 3:30 today(?) Any thing happening on that?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 68

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defended and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

Which they then should have gone through, catalogued, and gone over with their client, in triplicate. If there were materials that the government introduced at trial that they had not seen — the time to object to their admission was AT THE TIME THEY WERE MOVED, and not on the back end. That’s just incredibly brazen to try and object after the fact. You are required to object in a timely fashion, not days later.

Haha! Maybe the basis of Libby’s appeal will be that he didn’t receive adequate legal representation (just kidding).

Christy Hardin Smith @ 69

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defendant and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

Which they then should have gone through, catalogued, and gone over with their client, in triplicate. If there were materials that the government introduced at trial that they had not seen — the time to object to their admission was AT THE TIME THEY WERE MOVED, and not on the back end. That’s just incredibly brazen to try and object after the fact. You are required to object in a timely fashion, not days later.

This was tactical wasn’t it? Remember Wells stated initially he expected to raise disclosure issues post trial. I do note that Cline did claim he qualified statements regarding Libby’s potential testifying. I do not see this a matter of contempt at this point but the defense certainly found the edges of permissible behavior.

So – Cheney leaves soon for a week or so. I’m trying to figure out how Jane’s gonna wrangle tickets onto Air Force Two.

(I’m not betting against her getting her chance to make Cheney sweat before she comes home)

David Ehrenstein @
63

PBS is run by corporate thugs. I has no interest in the truth.

PBS is run by good people. I know. I am exactly on the perimeter.
But PBS is strangled by a lack of pubic funding. Can you name a PBS series that is not privately funded? There aren’t any. But that’s not PBS’s fault. The annual production subsidy given by the Feds to PBS to fill 8000 hours of time is less than NBC spends in one hour.

The only truly public TV in the US is C-Span.

new thread

Christy @ 69: Why do you suppose the defense would do this? Sloppiness and desperation on their part, or trying to make Judge Walton a little testy, pushing him to make some rulings that could be seen as prejudicial in appeal?

Just curious what the CW would be from a lawyer.

Thanks again for providing so much insight on the trial.

HotFlash @ 72

IIRC, Egregious said that Sealed vs Sealed was on the schedule on the courtroom door for 3:30 today(?) Any thing happening on that?

What? Before Walton? With Fitz and his team there? Were there any other Prosecutors present?

Sounds as if Fitz was going to unseal theealed indictment if there was a short day.

So hang on FDL’ers! There may be a BIG Announcement Tomorrow! It could be SHOWTIME!

Thanks Emptywheel and Fitz!

We’ve waited so long for this! I have every confidence that Fitz’s closing argument will be sensational!

The whole country is waiting!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 69

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defendant and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

Which they then should have gone through, catalogued, and gone over with their client, in triplicate. If there were materials that the government introduced at trial that they had not seen — the time to object to their admission was AT THE TIME THEY WERE MOVED, and not on the back end. That’s just incredibly brazen to try and object after the fact. You are required to object in a timely fashion, not days later.

This comment reminded me of something you said this morning:

Wells is more loose, and his style is not my preferred trial style, so it’s tough for me to comment on him without that clouding my opinion that he appears disorganized. But that may be a calculated tactic to confuse the jury — it’s hard to tell, but it just has felt so disorganized.

At this point, I’d be leaning toward Wells actually being disorganized, and not just appearing disorganized.

Yeah, it’s speculation on my part, but the facts in evidence seem to be pointed in that direction.

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defended and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

I agree. In cases with a lot of paper, (and I’m talking 100,000s of pages of material) the feds send it on CDs (and maybe some stuff in boxes), and they send everything. So yeah, it is hard to believe, so we shouldn’t and Walton won’t. Plus, it is a very easy thing for the gov’t to prove…….

Frank Probst @ 52

pseudonymous in nc @ 47

Seems to me that the $5m defence was all about raising grounds for appeal. Which is quite a smart strategy, since you get to bill for all of that appellant time.

Wells is a Democrat, right? I hope he’s chortling all the way to the bank. The fact that the money is coming straight from big Republican donors must be some fine icing on the cake.

I don’t know how political affiliations run here. Fitz is actually a Republican. His reputation and integrity allow him to be apolitical in these settings.

I understand that Walton has a history of siding on the side of the government in sensitive security cases.

Damiana @
42

Hey Christy, LHP and other legal eagles–

If Scooter is found guilty of lying when he said he didn’t leak classified information, does that mean Fitz could then go back after him and deal with the actual leak issue, and get the whole “declassifying on the fly” issue brought into court?

My thought is that he gave Ari pig-in-a-poke immunity for some reason, and his testimony in this case doesn’t seem like it’s worth what Fitz paid for it. He ain’t stupid; he’s almost certainly got grander plans for Ari coming.

As EW described Ari’s ebullience/performance while on the stand, I couldn’t help but sense a man experiencing a lot of turbulent emotional energy beneath his professional PR exterior. It was like a show. Something unseen and unheard really going on there.

LandOfTHeFree at 79 — They have to make a record for appeal of each and every objection. It has to be done in detail and on the record — that’s what a lot of today has been. What I don’t understand though is what they think they are doing trying to vouch the record after the fact like this.

heather @ 21

Thank you emptywheel, firedoglake, christy, and jane for a great service provided that I believe will change the world for the better. You all were the first. These days and this time will be remembered for a lot of things but I think your contribution is more than a little significant.

thanks again. heather

I second! Wonderful, Wonderful job!

What would happen if the FBI spoke with someone (as Eckenrode spoke to Russert), requested that they not reveal to anyone that the conversation took place, and the subject/interviewee refused to agree to that? It’s a common request made by the FBI as I understand it. What would happen if someone flat out said, “I decline your suggestion to not talk about our conversation. I intend to speak with my attorney tomorrow and I plan on telling a reporter about it the day after that.”

I’m sure most people would opt to cooperate with government investigators, but other than getting the FBI upset with you, would there be any reprecussions?

cinnamonape at 80 — It was before Walton, but there is no verification that Fitz or any of his team were participating. And there is no indication one way or the other whether it has anything to do with Fitz’ investigation or a completely separate matter. Deep breath time, everyone.

Fitz is holding his own. Wells and Jeffress are becoming desperate. I can’t give a subjective opinion because this administration has given me enough to know they all lie and the Pentagon IG report out just reinforces my feelings. But Wells knows putting Libby on the stand would be a disaster. He may still go down the tubes without testifying.

Walton: “I’m sure press does best to be accurate, there are times when press is not totally accurate.”

LOL.

Can the lawyers in the crowd tell me if this kind of “stunt(s)” that Wells/Jeffress et al are pulling after everyone rests is typical? I just honestly get the idea that what they are doing is just a tad on the unethical edge of good faith lawyering and negotiations…but not being a lawyer maybe this stuff is just fairly typical in venue of the legal system. It’s like they (the defense)keep trying to come up with a new reason to try to run out the clock, change the subject, find every scap of spaghetti even irrelevant dregs on the floor left all in attempt at purposefully mucking up the actual trial process and not the actual evidence in the case. It’s like CalvinBall. It appears that once the rules are agreed upon and hands have been shaken, they find another reason to change them. Is this typical and will it continue even during or after closing arguments? Maybe this is what defense lawyers do when the case they have is so weak…but from this outsider…it certainly doesn’t make them look good.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 85

LandOfTHeFree at 79 — They have to make a record for appeal of each and every objection. It has to be done in detail and on the record — that’s what a lot of today has been. What I don’t understand though is what they think they are doing trying to vouch the record after the fact like this.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at – what could be their motivation for doing this after the fact? Perhaps it’s a desperation move, perhaps they were trying to push buttons, perhaps they thought they could truly change the record.

Walton: Newspaper articles admitted into evidence have not been admitted for truth contained in the articles. You may not assume it is true or establishes any facts.

Doesn’t that describe 90% of all the newspaper articles published every day in this coutry?

Jwoods at 84 — Actually, Fitz is not a member of any political party, precisely because he has to prosecute public corruption cases and tries to avoid any appearance of impropriety as a result. His tendency is conservative in his legal apporach but, frankly, most prosecutors are when it comes to crime, I have to say. I’d probably scare the living daylights out of a lot of you if you started talking to me about criminal law. *g*

Sorry I forgot to add this in my previous post. Thanks to all who blogged this trial and kept us up to the minute with the proceedings. Your legal explanations and opinions were also enjoyable.I’m looking forward to Tuesday. Hopefully it will be easier(!) with no witnesses and sidebars.

“Your honor, the liveblog rests. (Until Tuesday)”

A big thank you yet again to everyone involved.

LandOfTheFree at 93 — They are doing it because that is their job. You have to put this sort of thing ont he record. Perhaps they realized after the fact that they needed to object. Perhaps they thought up a novel theory of objection and wanted to get it on the record. I don’t know — but I do know that when I was a defense attorney I did everything I could to document everything that I could to my client’s advantage, just in case we lost a jury verdict. Even for the clients that I was certain were likely to be found guilty — because that is what you do as a lawyer.

It isn’t some scheme or anything on their part — it is quite simply their job to think of every possible contingency and document it on the record on behalf of their client. Just in case.

By the way, gang, the end of the trial proffering of facts or particular points of evidence, what have you, is very common. You do this at the end of trial to more fully flesh out your arguments on the record in case of appeal. This is very common.

The uncommon aspect that I noted was trying to raise an objection after the fact when you failed to do so in a timely fashion during the actual testimony. I don’t recall an objection on the record at that point, but I’m going to have to go back and review the testimony to be certain. If there was no timely objection made, you cannot make one after the fact — you lose that for purposes of appeal. Just FYI.

Damiana @ 42

Hey Christy, LHP and other legal eagles–

If Scooter is found guilty of lying when he said he didn’t leak classified information, does that mean Fitz could then go back after him and deal with the actual leak issue, and get the whole “declassifying on the fly” issue brought into court?

My thought is that he gave Ari pig-in-a-poke immunity for some reason, and his testimony in this case doesn’t seem like it’s worth what Fitz paid for it. He ain’t stupid; he’s almost certainly got grander plans for Ari coming.

Libby is not charged with lying about whether he leaked classified information. He’s charged with lying about whether he had conversations with certain reporters about Plame (he said he didn’t when he did, and he said he did when he didn’t). So a conviction of perjury does not require a finding by the jury that Libby violated the IIPA. It just requires a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Libby is a lying sack of shit.

Are there going to be arguments tomorrow on the jury instructions?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 94

Jwoods at 84 — Actually, Fitz is not a member of any political party, precisely because he has to prosecute public corruption cases and tries to avoid any appearance of impropriety as a result. His tendency is conservative in his legal apporach but, frankly, most prosecutors are when it comes to crime, I have to say. I’d probably scare the living daylights out of a lot of you if you started talking to me about criminal law. *g*

Pat Fitzgerald was recommended for his US Attorney position in Illinois by none other than Peter Fitzgerald, a republican (no relation). Perhaps that is where I got confused. My bad

Christy Hardin Smith @ 97

LandOfTheFree at 93 — They are doing it because that is their job. You have to put this sort of thing ont he record. Perhaps they realized after the fact that they needed to object. Perhaps they thought up a novel theory of objection and wanted to get it on the record. I don’t know — but I do know that when I was a defense attorney I did everything I could to document everything that I could to my client’s advantage, just in case we lost a jury verdict. Even for the clients that I was certain were likely to be found guilty — because that is what you do as a lawyer.

It isn’t some scheme or anything on their part — it is quite simply their job to think of every possible contingency and document it on the record on behalf of their client. Just in case.

thanks for the clarification in this and your following post.

If Fitzy was a Republican, he’s a Democrat now.
Can someone explain why they dropped a part
of the obstruction charge?

And the Jury wore red??

That seems a bad omen to the defence. I don’t think it means they are red staters, instead sounds like they are united if they can all agree to wearing red. If someone was a descenter, he/she would have signaled it by not going along. Libby should plead while he has a chance.

Pectopah @ 104

And the Jury wore red??

That seems a bad omen to the defence. I don’t think it means they are red staters, instead sounds like they are united if they can all agree to wearing red. If someone was a descenter, he/she would have signaled it by not going along. Libby should plead while he has a chance.

Even more ominous to the defense, the jury has an uncoscious solidarity.

Peterr @ 81

Christy Hardin Smith @ 69

You know, this is the second time that the defense has attempted the “poor discovery” tactic with regard to the government’s turnover of materials. And to say that they did not recieve the contents of Libby’s files really stretches credibility for me, I have to be honest. (especially after the Cathie Martin notes crap) I’ve gotten discovery from the FBI and/or DEA on federal cases that I’ve defendant and it comes in box after box in a much smaller-level drug case. I can only imagine how many boxes of evidentiary information Team Libby received.

Which they then should have gone through, catalogued, and gone over with their client, in triplicate. If there were materials that the government introduced at trial that they had not seen — the time to object to their admission was AT THE TIME THEY WERE MOVED, and not on the back end. That’s just incredibly brazen to try and object after the fact. You are required to object in a timely fashion, not days later.

This comment reminded me of something you said this morning:

Wells is more loose, and his style is not my preferred trial style, so it’s tough for me to comment on him without that clouding my opinion that he appears disorganized. But that may be a calculated tactic to confuse the jury — it’s hard to tell, but it just has felt so disorganized.

At this point, I’d be leaning toward Wells actually being disorganized, and not just appearing disorganized.

Yeah, it’s speculation on my part, but the facts in evidence seem to be pointed in that direction.

Team Libby does seem to have put on a smoke-and-mirrors FUD defense, haven’t they? The only reasons I can come up with for them having done so are (a) they didn’t have much to work with and were pretty much hamstrung by the administration so they had to try to whip what they did have up into a froth to make it look bigger and more solid, and (b) they weren’t really trying the case here, they’re making a case for appeal. (And IANAL, but it doesn’t seem like a very good one from this standpoint.)

And honestly, even if Wells is highly disorganized himself, Team Libby is easily big enough that it must include much more organized minds to support him. I have a hard time imagining such disorganization and apparent incompetence (trying to get documents thrown out AFTER both sides have rested???) as being anything but deliberate, odd as that might sound.

litigatormom @ 99

Damiana @ 42

Hey Christy, LHP and other legal eagles–

If Scooter is found guilty of lying when he said he didn’t leak classified information, does that mean Fitz could then go back after him and deal with the actual leak issue, and get the whole “declassifying on the fly” issue brought into court?

My thought is that he gave Ari pig-in-a-poke immunity for some reason, and his testimony in this case doesn’t seem like it’s worth what Fitz paid for it. He ain’t stupid; he’s almost certainly got grander plans for Ari coming.

Libby is not charged with lying about whether he leaked classified information. He’s charged with lying about whether he had conversations with certain reporters about Plame (he said he didn’t when he did, and he said he did when he didn’t). So a conviction of perjury does not require a finding by the jury that Libby violated the IIPA. It just requires a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Libby is a lying sack of shit.

Yeah, I realized after I hit “submit” that it came out to sound like something completely different from what I intended. What I was trying to say was, if Libby is found guilty of lying here, particularly since it was established that he heard about Plame from people and in a context that would imply her status was (probably) classified, can he then be tried for his part of the leak? EPU managed to parse what I was trying to say, and answered me above. :-)

Bay State Librul @
103

If Fitzy was a Republican, he’s a Democrat now.
Can someone explain why they dropped a part
of the obstruction charge?

Yes, someone, please explain. This struck me as odd, and possibly ominous. I’d prefer to see him found guilty on ALL counts!

And I certainly hope that the one juror NOT wearing red today did so out of sartorial reluctance, and not as any sign of being a Lone Ranger during deliberations!

Bob in HI

Could the Jury be dismissed at this point? I was concerned about the shirts they wore. Does it show them as not taking the case seriously?

sweetgumroot @ 105

Pectopah @ 104

And the Jury wore red??

That seems a bad omen to the defence. I don’t think it means they are red staters, instead sounds like they are united if they can all agree to wearing red. If someone was a descenter, he/she would have signaled it by not going along. Libby should plead while he has a chance.

Even more ominous to the defense, the jury has an uncoscious solidarity.

i think the jury wore red because it’s valentine’s day today. it was my first thought. and yes, it does sound like solidarity. a nice kind. playful.

I thought they wore red for Valentine’s Day.

Quoting from the trial post:

“Walton in reference to GJ testimony, I’ve given the limiting instruction that there’s no claim that Libby disclosed info illegally. I think that’s an appropriate instruction. I do believe it was a unique enough situation that it was of such a nature that the jury could conclude that it was an event he would not forget.”

Let’s hope the jury follows Walton’s logic and observations. Seems to get right to the core of the believability of an argument that Libby just “forgot” what he said or did.

Memories are a tricky thing.

Usually, people remember past events best based on two criteria: 1) something highly emotional occurred (whether pleasurable or traumatic) and 2) if an event is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime event (versus the everyday, humdrum, repetitive).

During June and July 2003, several unique events occurred in regards to Libby’s daily routine, outside his normal nuts-and-bolts daily duties.

He, along with other top-level Bush administration officials, were ordered by Dick Cheney (and his partner in crime, George W. Bush) to go after administration critic, Joe Wilson.

Part of this effort involved leaking selected parts of a classified National Intelligence Estimate report to Republican lapdog members of the MSM, an effort which required presidential declassification of selected parts of this report to accomplish their goal of rebutting Joe Wilson’s challenge to the 16 words in the SOTU.

Would this presidential declassification action have been unique, however? Yes. Normal declassification of classified government documents follows a formal process. What Bush and Cheney did was abnormal and informal (and initially limited to a few BushCo insiders reportedly), thus making it a highly unique event in Libby’s day to day White House routine.

At the same time, this “get Joe Wilson” strategy morphed into a “get Joe Wilson by dragging his wife, Valerie Plame, into the picture” strategy. Which brings us to another singular, extraordinary, unique event in June and July 2003: the criminal outing of a covert non-official cover CIA agent along with revealing the identity of a CIA front company.

Thus, it is really hard to believe (or swallow) that Libby, in what he told the feds and the grand jury months later, misspoke because he misremembered his participation during this singular period in June and July 2003, and the unique events surrounding the outing of a covert CIA agent’s identity.

Libby committed perjury and he now has two hopes remaining: 1) on appeal, his case is heard by an appeals court packed with hardcore, right-wing Bush appointees who believe the U.S. Constitution has as much value as used toilet paper or 2) an eleventh hour vice-presid…er, presidential pardon.

But maybe the jury will find him not guilty? I have faith that Patrick Fitzgerald will successfully argue that Libby lied and obstructed justice, and win a conviction. Time will tell.