Fitz

Fitz! Emptywheel! Christy! Jane!

Fitz! Swopa!

Serves me right for trying to be all-inclusive ;)

Doesn’t all this “go to Libby’s state of mind,” as the lawyers put it? Obsessed with ends that always seem to justify the means, cutting legal corners without any hint of shame, believing that it’s acceptable to say anything in order to win (or at least muddy up) the day’s news cycle?

If you ask me, that’s the state of mind which got Scooter into this mess, and may yet put him behind bars.

nicely summarized

I think that Fitzgerald is pissed, but more importantly, I think Walton is Really Pissed.

HotFlash @
4

Serves me right for trying to be all-inclusive ;)

Capture first, then edit. That’s Zero101

Don’t tell anyone ; )

Godspeed to FDL all involved, Thanks

I think spending a couple of hours w/Judy at the St.Regis and being giddy about meeting Tommy Cruise says volumns abouy his state of mind.

Yeah, Ted Wells could be risking his entire reputation on these theatrics. I guess ole Babs must be paying him pretty well.

Which just goes to show you this trial was never really about defending Libby, it was about defending the veep. Libby’s already a lost cause pending some sort of miraculous appeal. They wanted to see what Fitzie had on the other conspirators. The fact that none of these people ended up testifying makes me think that it’s gotta be pretty bad and they’re hella afraid of Fitz’s cross.

Libby’s state of mind should not be confused with Cheney’s state of mine or Bush’s state of denial.

Swopa, brilliant analogy, they have relied on lies for so long, they don’t know why we don’t. A saying from a long time ago, seems appropo.-
The problem with being in a cult is you don’t know you’re in a cult until you try to leave the cult.

Hugh @ 11

Libby’s state of mind should not be confused with Cheney’s state of mine or Bush’s state of denial.

quote of the day

Damn, Swopa – terrific writing!

Does this imply that Libby’s state of mind is “run around and cover your ass. Throw everything you have at the wall, and see what sticks and might appear remotely plausible. You don’t have to make sense, just keep saying stuff – you don’t have to actually back up your assertions by evidence. Try to distract everyone and cover your tracks by using a lot of smoke & mirrors”? Cuz that’s how it looks from here.

Hi Swopa, excellent post.

Watching Wells and Cline today esp reminded me of the Republicans gaming parliamentary procedure in Congress. Although Team Libby’s shenanigans were obviously annoying Judge Walton, I concluded that he was required to remain impartial, ie, would/could not take it out on Libby in any way. But surely, lawyers would ride roughshod over the courts if there wasn’t some penalty for this kind of opportunism.

OT, John Edwards will be on Larry King’s show tonight discussing his proposal to end the war.

Speaking of Tom Cruise, didn’t Armitage also have an appointement with him?

Great summary Swopa!
I wonder, though, if that state of mind is what drove the Bush administration for the last 6 years?

I’m still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding exactly what vital national interest was served by publicly identifying Valerie Plame and her job.

Putting aside all the purported POTUS/VPOTUS ad hoc insta-declass authority, CPD vs WINPAC, “classified vs covert” red herring blabbity-blab ad nauseum stuff.

WHAT legit national interest was served?

These scummy pricks.
_

So the defense rested without making much of a defense. It makes me wonder why Scooter just didn’t plead guilty and wait for the pardon. Was all this just so he could stay out of jail till the trial ends and maybe on appeal too ?

This sad little drama will play itself out like a turd in the yard.

BobbyG @ 18

I’m still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding exactly what vital national interest was served by publicly identifying Valerie Plame and her job.

Putting aside all the purported POTUS/VPOTUS ad hoc insta-declass authority, CPD vs WINPAC, “classified vs covert” red herring blabbity-blab ad nauseum stuff.

WHAT legit national interest was served?

These scummy pricks.
_

You won’t find any rational for outing Plame. She was “fair game” as Rove puts it.

Tannen @ 6

I think that Fitzgerald is pissed, but more importantly, I think Walton is Really Pissed.

All that counts is whether the jury is pissed. Obviously, stuff happens and tactics do change during trial. My partner almost always asks the jury in both opening statement and closing argument to hold the lawyers to what was promised in opening statements, and see who kept their promises. That is why we always get the overnight transcript of opposing counsel’s opening. If I recall their opening orrectly, Libby’s lawyers are going to have alot of explaining to do about their unkept promises.

LandOfTheFree @ 13

Damn, Swopa – terrific writing!

Does this imply that Libby’s state of mind is “run around and cover your ass. Throw everything you have at the wall, and see what sticks and might appear remotely plausible. You don’t have to make sense, just keep saying stuff – you don’t have to actually back up your assertions by evidence. Try to distract everyone and cover your tracks by using a lot of smoke & mirrors”? Cuz that’s how it looks from here.

I think Libby is about protect the Veep. The defense has been arranged for him, all he has to do is keep his lip zipped.

I boldly predict the shamelessness won’t end in closing arguments.

Fitz even seemed to anticipate ths as well with a remark about how it would be difficult to police what comes out of the defense attorney’s mouth. (Did I pick up that Wells will not be doing the closing, btw?)

I think it will be pretty simple–the prosecution never made its case(what else do they really have), but I expect more of the “I speak for Scooter Libby” and “you can draw whatever conclusions you want from his busy and important schedule” and the fact that lots of journalists with Pullitzers did NOT get leaked to.

Walton will be very defferential to the defense and the defense will take advantage of that deference.

Fitz, on the other hand, will KILL in summation and it won’t really matter at the end of the day WHAT comes out of the defense’s pie hole. IMHO

froggermarch @ 23

I boldly predict the shamelessness won’t end in closing arguments.

Fitz even seemed to anticipate ths as well with a remark about how it would be difficult to police what comes out of the defense attorney’s mouth. (Did I pick up that Wells will not be doing the closing, btw?)

I think it will be pretty simple–the prosecution never made its case(what else do they really have), but I expect more of the “I speak for Scooter Libby” and “you can draw whatever conclusions you want from his busy and important schedule” and the fact that lots of journalists with Pullitzers did NOT get leaked to.

Walton will be very defferential to the defense and the defense will take advantage of that deference.

Fitz, on the other hand, will KILL in summation and it won’t really matter at the end of the day WHAT comes out of the defense’s pie hole. IMHO

did you mean prosecution or defense making its case?

HotFlash @ 22

LandOfTheFree @ 13

Damn, Swopa – terrific writing!

Does this imply that Libby’s state of mind is “run around and cover your ass. Throw everything you have at the wall, and see what sticks and might appear remotely plausible. You don’t have to make sense, just keep saying stuff – you don’t have to actually back up your assertions by evidence. Try to distract everyone and cover your tracks by using a lot of smoke & mirrors”? Cuz that’s how it looks from here.

I think Libby is about protect the Veep. The defense has been arranged for him, all he has to do is keep his lip zipped.

Yup. Zip the lip and get yer pardon.

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. What never came out in this trial was the power struggle going on in the cabinet at this time: Cheney&Rumsfeld vs Powell. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. These are guys that go WAY BAck in government, and here they were again, with an agenda, ie, Iran and Iraq. If Wilson had omitted the phrase about “at the request of the vp,” the critiscm itself regarding the reasons for going to war would not have had them scurrying. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

PatD @ 19

So the defense rested without making much of a defense. It makes me wonder why Scooter just didn’t plead guilty and wait for the pardon.

100% chance of being declared “guilty” vs ______% chance (less than 100)? Easy call.
_

Imagine how many people will be pissed when the pardon happens.

Swopa:

A head fake that Scooter’s defense would be based on pleading that he was scapegoated in order to protect Karl Rove. Bogus rumors that Rove and Dan Bartlett would be forced to testify. Bogus rumors flat-out assertions by defense lawyers that VP Dick Cheney would testify on Libby’s behalf. And even more cynically bogus claims that Libby himself would take the stand, woven into a ploy to introduce a dubious “memory defense” and try for a mistrial by demanding access to large quantities of classified material.

…

If you ask me, that’s the state of mind which got Scooter into this mess, and may yet put him behind bars.

Honestly, this trial has been a masterful display on the defense’s part of muck-up and inconsistency.

I can see 3 possible reasons for it:

1) Incompetence and stupidity – neither of which correlates with Wells’, Jefress’s, or Cline’s record or hourly rates;

2) An attempt to create an appelate record with as many openings to request review as possible, or;

3) A pardon deal has been worked out with the POTUS.

I think the latter two are most likely. A lengthy appelate review would give the administration time to put off a pardon until it was politically expedient, and if successful would obviate the need to grant one.

Second, the defense’s opening clearly implicated and threatened the administration. That Rove was never called to the stand and that the defense never followed up on its Rove cover-up defense suggests some sort of accomodation was reached.

The defense’s own statements to the bench regarding hours of testimony preparation with the VP shows that high-level contacts between the administration and Libby’s legal team were maintained throughout the trial.

So I think a pardon deal must have been reached after the defense’s opening statements.

Which might also explain why the defense ultimately called no administration officials, excepting John Hannah, who – let’s face it – only testified that Scooter had a really really busy working day. Testimony that ended up working against the defense when it was pointed out that it must have then been really important to meet with Judy for a two hour coffee break.

Swopa- Excellent observations by you and EW.

What really stuck in my craw was Wells pulling his Eddie Haskell bit before the judge swearing on his Valentine heart that they NEVER, EVER considered not putting Libby and Cheney on the stand until the very last moment. “Really! Judge Walton, we respect you too much!”

And then he and Jeffers start asking for all sorts of quite obvious elements of the Prosecutors evidence to be withdrawn because the Judge hadn’t allowed it in. But it turns out that Walton HAD allowec it in!

Putting Wells back in Waltons dog-house I hope! “Gee, Mrs. Cleaver…I think I saw the Beeve hanging out near the broken window!”

Someone said in an earlier thread that Scoots might be compelled to testify before Congress with no immunity if he gets pardoned, or risk new charges. Anyone shed any light on this? Could change the dynamic big time on a pardon.

OT – No, I actually don’t agree that any of that goes to Scooter’s state of mind. I think it is similar to any defense that you might see in a white collar criminal case – unless you want to make the argument that any and all defenses, absent a bulletproof alibi, shows state of mind.

But you made me cranky b/c you EPU’d me, and I am still battling my nemesis Tom Schaller in the last thread.

EPU v. Schaller: Who’s ideas?

susie @ 26

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

Nice point. It does seem that a lot of the witnesses as to what Scooter told them mentioned that he emphasized “WE didn’t send him!”

Still, I think the bigger point was that Wilson was the first person with credentials to come out and say that the Admin’s argument was false. Turf war secondary, IMO, tho’ not unimportant.

Twisted Martini: “Someone said in an earlier thread that Scoots might be compelled to testify before Congress with no immunity if he gets pardoned, or risk new charges. Anyone shed any light on this?”

That’s true, but it might not be of much concern to Bush, et. al., if it can be delayed until the administration is out of office. Congress might regard it as too late for hearings to have any meaningful repercussions by then.
.

Here is Joe Wilson’s article for anyone wanting to read it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07…..r=USERLAND

In particular:”In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions…”

“office” meant whom? Libby?

Isn’t Catherine Martin still working at the White House? I thought her testimony was pretty brutal to the defense.

LandOfTheFree @
14

Damn, Swopa – terrific writing!

Does this imply that Libby’s state of mind is “run around and cover your ass. Throw everything you have at the wall, and see what sticks and might appear remotely plausible. You don’t have to make sense, just keep saying stuff – you don’t have to actually back up your assertions by evidence. Try to distract everyone and cover your tracks by using a lot of smoke & mirrors”? Cuz that’s how it looks from here.

Precisely.

Everybody knows that a crack defense team is supposed to brainstorm all sorts of arguments to help the defendant survive.

The problem here is that the “brainstorm” they engaged in is looking more and more like a hallucinogenic drug trip.

Doesn’t all this “go to Libby’s state of mind,” as the lawyers put it?

To be fair (and its hard for me on this one) I think the answer is “no.”

Clients may or may not be responsible for lawyers digging in and playing hardball, but it isn’t fair to hold them to a standard of responsiblity for their lawyers being jerks. Advocates are supposed to push and most clients have enough trouble on their plate without taking responsiblity for their lawyers being pompous or crossing from advocacy to idiocy.

OTOH, I feel perfectly comfortable with holding Libby liable for his share in what he has done – in the huge loss of faith in the truthfulness and integrity of the White House engendered by his own willing participation in misleading dissemention of information that caused a war and subsequent lies about leaks and information manipulation.

Libby’s got enough trouble without making him his lawyers’ keeper.

Oh!

And Happy Valentine’s Day, Firepups!

Will you all be my Valentines?

EPU’d (with a little editing) from the preceding thread:

If I were to read the “tea leaves” of the Valentine’s Day T-Shirts, I would say that it means that the jury really respects Judge Walton, and will hang on his every word when he instructs the jury. Which is a good thing for the prosecution, I think, because he will remind them about the limitations on Wells’ ability to argue the “Libby Was Overwhelmed By Other Much More Important Matters” Defense.

On the other hand, of course, he will instruct them about reasonable doubt, and that the government must prove its case, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything, the defendant doesn’t have to take the stand, etc.

But he should also tell them that a “reasonable doubt” means more than just a doubt based on speculation. Which is really all that Wells has given the jury in terms of Libby’s alleged memory defense. Yes, it’s possible that he forgot about his conversations with Cheney, Bartlett, Martin, Fleischer, Schmalls, Cooper, Miller, etc. It’s possible for anyone to forget anything. Yes, it’s possible that he “misremembered” a discussion with Russert that didn’t occur — perhaps a discussion that occurred with someone else. (Rove? “Hey, Karl, reporters are telling me that Plame is CIA!” “Really, Scooter, reporters are telling me that too!” “Yeah, Karl, THAT’S the ticket! Reporters!”)

But has the defense given the jury any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that supports the assertion that Libby actually did forget? “Supports” doesn’t have to mean “proves.” Libby doesn’t have to prove he forgot. Can he just SAY he forgot (or in this case, have his lawyer just say he forgot). And I don’t see anything in the record that supports an actual memory loss. I just see argument.

Fitz has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter Libby’s statements to the FBI and GJ were inaccurate. But has be proven that the inaccurate statements were intentional? I think he has. I think that at the very least, Scooter’s lunch conversation with Ari Fleischer on July 7 cannot be reconciled with Scooter’s GJ testimony about his phone call with Russert. The jury would have to disbelieve both Fleischer and Russert to conclude that there was a reasonable doubt about whether Libby’s misstatements were intentional. The mere possibility that Libby was so forgetful, and so busy, that he believed his own testimony about the Russert conversation is, to me, very speculative indeed.

Christy, Marcy, Jane, Swopa, Jeralyn and Pach, what do you see that I don’t see? Am I just in a State of Denial?

I saw after I posted this in the prior thread a comment referencing Jeralyn’s view that there was reasonable doubt. What am I missing?

We here, in this family, are under the impression that we have become a ‘winning is the only thing’ culture. We are also of the opinion that many times there are other things more important than “winning”. This idea cuts across family political lines, and is one thing that unites this some might say, unusual bunch. This family still clings to the notion that it’s how one plays the game that’s important. Perhaps we have, in this, become archaic and out of time. Granted, we are somewhat old fashioned, and perhaps radical.

Libby – The Stepford COS! Mind?! I don’t need no stupid MIND! AllI can think about is Judy .. and the aspens! Dick directs me… .

Sally @
16

OT, John Edwards will be on Larry King’s show tonight discussing his proposal to end the war.

Speaking of Tom Cruise, didn’t Armitage also have an appointement with him?

Yeah! That’s one hell of a weird coincidence, isn’t it?

While I admit that there may be some unintentional verisimilitude between Libby’s tactics in the OVP and those of the defense, it must be said that a good defense often requires protecting the client from himself and his own worst instincts, and they may well have done that by not insisting that Cheney testify (it was telling that Wells insisted, after the fact, that they’d spent hours prepping Cheney for his testimony), and it’s quite possible that Libby may have wanted Cheney to ride in on his sky chariot, and as with any Greek drama gone awry, save Libby from his own errors in scripting. Cheney as deus ex machina. :)

In this case, I think the defense knew from that prepping (regardless of what Scooter wanted) that Cheney was not going to do well on cross, so I don’t think the defense had much choice but to pursue the “baffle with bullshit” course of action, if only to create a big enough smokescreen to hide the appeal truck in the background.

So, maybe, law imitates politics, but, as I’ve suggested before, they may have thought one thing when they took the case, and then said, “oh, fuck me to tears,” when they got to discovery, while Scooter is thinking, all the while, Shooter will save me, Shooter will save me, where the hell are my ruby slippers?, Shooter will save me….

susie @
26

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. What never came out in this trial was the power struggle going on in the cabinet at this time: Cheney&Rumsfeld vs Powell. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. These are guys that go WAY BAck in government, and here they were again, with an agenda, ie, Iran and Iraq. If Wilson had omitted the phrase about “at the request of the vp,” the critiscm itself regarding the reasons for going to war would not have had them scurrying. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

If so, how does Rumsfeld’s firing figure in? Do we have BushRove vs CheneyRumsfeld? Who is backing who, and who is winning? Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Mrs. K8 @ 39

Oh!

And Happy Valentine’s Day, Firepups!

Will you all be my Valentines?

Sure Mrs. Kate. As long as we don’t have to wear red t-shirts…. :)

JGabriel @ 34

Twisted Martini: “Someone said in an earlier thread that Scoots might be compelled to testify before Congress with no immunity if he gets pardoned, or risk new charges. Anyone shed any light on this?”

That’s true, but it might not be of much concern to Bush, et. al., if it can be delayed until the administration is out of office. Congress might regard it as too late for hearings to have any meaningful repercussions by then.

He’d come in handy at impeachment proceedings. Fun if he sang, fun if he stonewalled.

Badwater @
28

Imagine how many people will be pissed when the pardon happens.

So? How many people were pissed when the Nixon pardon happened? He got it, nonetheless. Aristocrats live on a different plane than the rabble. They don’t care what we think!

1,436 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Swopa and the Firedog Patriots:

Right on with the observation about “the state of mind” that got poor Scooter into this mess. Could we say that the ideology that drives the neo-cons and this administration requires a faith in the ability of the individual or the nation collectively to create reality out of sear force of will (remember “The Triumph of the Will”)? In a sense, what our country has been experiencing for the last 26 years is the result of a state of mind…a fascist state of mind.

We must begin to attach the word “fascist” or “fascism” to every critique of political actions or behavior of the ruling junta. We are in the terrible position today the acceptable or “mainstream” political vocabulary has expanded to include overt expressions of political eliminationism, anti-democratic rhetoric to reduce the franchise, overt expressions of anti-semitism and blatant expressions of racialism and racism.

I have been beating this poor horse for the last 25 years and I’m afraid the poor thing is too far outta the barn ta get it reigned in…but I would like to see the folks in our progressive vanguard here on FDL and elsewhere to start usin the “F” word in dialogue and conversation when addressing all things Republican.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION, THEY AREN’T EVEN CLOSE TA DONE YET!!!

HotFlash @ 45

Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Far and away the baddest show on TV. I have Seasons 1-3 on DVD, Season 4 is up now on HBO. It is simply incredible.
_

Does Rumsfeld still have a desk in the Pentagon along with several aids?

Mrs. K8 @ 39

Oh!

And Happy Valentine’s Day, Firepups!

Will you all be my Valentines?

Yes – as long as there are no hallucinogenic drug trips involved. I love my chocolate sugar highs, but that’s about as far as I trip!

I hope you’ve had a happy and healthy Valentine’s Day!

Mrs. K8 @ 39

Oh!

And Happy Valentine’s Day, Firepups!

Will you all be my Valentines?

With great delight, {{{{{{{{{{Mrs K8!}}}}}}}}}}}

And hugs for Mr K*, too.

montag @ 44

While I admit that there may be some unintentional verisimilitude between Libby’s tactics in the OVP and those of the defense, it must be said that a good defense often requires protecting the client from himself and his own worst instincts, and they may well have done that by not insisting that Cheney testify (it was telling that Wells insisted, after the fact, that they’d spent hours prepping Cheney for his testimony), and it’s quite possible that Libby may have wanted Cheney to ride in on his sky chariot, and as with any Greek drama gone awry, save Libby from his own errors in scripting. Cheney as deus ex machina. :)

In this case, I think the defense knew from that prepping (regardless of what Scooter wanted) that Cheney was not going to do well on cross, so I don’t think the defense had much choice but to pursue the “baffle with bullshit” course of action, if only to create a big enough smokescreen to hide the appeal truck in the background….

I have a hearing in a pro bono matter tomorrow morning. The associate and I have been planning to put on a witness. Not five minutes ago, I got an email from the associate prepping the witness that we cannot put him on the stand. I don’t even know why yet. So yes, sometimes those decisions are made at the very last minute.

(Fortunately, we haven’t told a jury that we’d be putting the guy on, and the subject of his testimony can be covered by another witness.)

And the same may have happened with Scooter, although that’s less likely just because it’s late in the day to discover new information about your client. But I once had to decide, in the half hour before a client was going to testify in an SEC deposition, that I couldn’t let him testify, and I advised him to take the 5th, which he did (it was about a collateral matter, but one that was likely to come up in questioning). That was difficult, because I assumed that it would make the SEC even more interested in him than they already were. But I couldn’t let him say the things he was going to say to the SEC, and I had only discovered it the day before. Amazingly, the SEC accepted his assertion of the 5th Amendment with equanimity and never came after the client….

LindaR @ 48

Aristocrats live on a different plane than the rabble. They don’t care what we think!

Bush once famously told a critic in Philly who confronted him at some photo-op event “Who cares what you think?”
_

HotFlash @ 45

If so, how does Rumsfeld’s firing figure in? Do we have BushRove vs CheneyRumsfeld? Who is backing who, and who is winning? Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Well, I think the jury is still out whether Rumsfeld was really fired. After all, he still has an office and a staff in Washington to “help the transition”. Yes, he’s getting paid by someone to continue to pull the strings on the DOD.

I think he stepped down for PR reasons, but he’s still working his Rummy magic for Cheney & Bush. Yikes.

My gut instinct is that there is no Bush/Rove vs. Cheney/Rumsfeld. I think they’ve all been collaborating with each other all along, knowing they have to work together to keep each of them out of serious charges. I haven’t seen enough evidence otherwise – with the exception of Wells opening statement that Scooter was being the scapegoat for Rove – and we know that that boat never got out of the dock.

montag @ 44

While I admit that there may be some unintentional verisimilitude between Libby’s tactics in the OVP and those of the defense, it must be said that a good defense often requires protecting the client from himself and his own worst instincts, and they may well have done that by not insisting that Cheney testify (it was telling that Wells insisted, after the fact, that they’d spent hours prepping Cheney for his testimony), and it’s quite possible that Libby may have wanted Cheney to ride in on his sky chariot, and as with any Greek drama gone awry, save Libby from his own errors in scripting. Cheney as deus ex machina. :)

In this case, I think the defense knew from that prepping (regardless of what Scooter wanted) that Cheney was not going to do well on cross, so I don’t think the defense had much choice but to pursue the “baffle with bullshit” course of action, if only to create a big enough smokescreen to hide the appeal truck in the background.

So, maybe, law imitates politics, but, as I’ve suggested before, they may have thought one thing when they took the case, and then said, “oh, fuck me to tears,” when they got to discovery, while Scooter is thinking, all the while, Shooter will save me, Shooter will save me, where the hell are my ruby slippers?, Shooter will save me….

That is so sad, I feel a little sorry for Scooter. But if your lot in life is to be a henchman, it is important that you choose your principal carefully.

Wells: We spent hours working on preparing Vice President.

Does this imply they spoke to him directly? Would there be any evidence if true?

If they did, then that would have been one hell of a conversation to listen in on!

Bush stated today that “money trumps peace sometimes.” And guess what folks? Lying trumps everything! Of course the defense rested. This country rested long time ago. We continue to pretend that this administration is legitimate, sane, and functional. Why shouldn’t Libby believe he can win. One juror is all he needs. And since we all know that there are still people out here that believe in Bush…why not roll the dice. Damn them all!

Looking at Tuckster. He wants to know if Obama is too “testy” and if “Obama is tough enough”? And does Obama “lack substance”? Unbelievable.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Looking at Tuckster. He wants to know if Obama is too “testy” and if “Obama is tough enough”? And does Obama “lack substance”? Unbelievable.

As compared to himself, for instance?

Carole @ 60

Bush stated today that “money trumps peace sometimes.” And guess what folks? Lying trumps everything! Of course the defense rested. This country rested long time ago. We continue to pretend that this administration is legitimate, sane, and functional. Why shouldn’t Libby believe he can win. One juror is all he needs. And since we all know that there are still people out here that believe in Bush…why not roll the dice. Damn them all!

Stamp feet for 6 years. (nada) Whistle for 6 years. (nada) Can we put impeachment back on the table now?

Carole @ 59

Bush stated today that “money trumps peace sometimes.”

Just ask Cheney and his Energy Task Force, with their neat-o little maps of Iraqi oil fields and their prospective divvy-it-up list of crony firms, all on the table in early 2001.
_

Bush once famously told a critic in Philly who confronted him at some photo-op event “Who cares what you think?”

vis

NorskeFlamethrower @ 49

1,436 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Swopa and the Firedog Patriots:

Right on with the observation about “the state of mind” that got poor Scooter into this mess. Could we say that the ideology that drives the neo-cons and this administration requires a faith in the ability of the individual or the nation collectively to create reality out of sear force of will (remember “The Triumph of the Will”)? In a sense, what our country has been experiencing for the last 26 years is the result of a state of mind…a fascist state of mind.

We must begin to attach the word “fascist” or “fascism” to every critique of political actions or behavior of the ruling junta. We are in the terrible position today the acceptable or “mainstream” political vocabulary has expanded to include overt expressions of political eliminationism, anti-democratic rhetoric to reduce the franchise, overt expressions of anti-semitism and blatant expressions of racialism and racism.

I have been beating this poor horse for the last 25 years and I’m afraid the poor thing is too far outta the barn ta get it reigned in…but I would like to see the folks in our progressive vanguard here on FDL and elsewhere to start usin the “F” word in dialogue and conversation when addressing all things Republican.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION, THEY AREN’T EVEN CLOSE TA DONE YET!!!

Ayn Rand?

HotFlash @ 62

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Looking at Tuckster. He wants to know if Obama is too “testy” and if “Obama is tough enough”? And does Obama “lack substance”? Unbelievable.

As compared to himself, for instance?

;0)

HotFlash @ 45

susie @
26

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. What never came out in this trial was the power struggle going on in the cabinet at this time: Cheney&Rumsfeld vs Powell. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. These are guys that go WAY BAck in government, and here they were again, with an agenda, ie, Iran and Iraq. If Wilson had omitted the phrase about “at the request of the vp,” the critiscm itself regarding the reasons for going to war would not have had them scurrying. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

If so, how does Rumsfeld’s firing figure in? Do we have BushRove vs CheneyRumsfeld? Who is backing who, and who is winning? Sorry, never seen The Wire.

No, it would be cheney/rummy-parallel-govenment -with-no-oversight-and-do-whatever-the-heck-they want vs US government clerks, officials and military that actually believe in the constitution.

Swopa, this is brilliant. Hopefully Fitz will remind the jury of all this B.S. and it will be the end for Scooterpie.

Badwater @ 28

Imagine how many people will be pissed when the pardon happens.

the neo fascists will cheer

I already hear these traitors on the radios saying libby SHOULD be pardoned

and their marionettes move their lips like the mindless puppets they are

Three points: The playing of Libby’s grand jury testimony to the jurors will hurt him .Two a ton of Fitz’s witnesses confirmed his perjury.Three Libby’s defense witnesses did not rebut his perjury charges by their testimony . An extra bonus point not smart for defense lawyers to upset a judge .

Scooter was one of the brains of the operation. He was an important architect of PNAC and its hegemonic ME and global dominance objectives. We know that PNAC is a major component of this administration. Scooter is very intelligent and educated. They would miss his input were it not for the fact that they are now more focused on putting out fires than on creating new destructive hegemonic policy. At least now we’ve got them busy putting out fires. Small wonder that the boys are so cranky lately.

Jwoods @ 24

froggermarch @ 23

I boldly predict the shamelessness won’t end in closing arguments.

Fitz even seemed to anticipate ths as well with a remark about how it would be difficult to police what comes out of the defense attorney’s mouth. (Did I pick up that Wells will not be doing the closing, btw?)

I think it will be pretty simple–the prosecution never made its case(what else do they really have), but I expect more of the “I speak for Scooter Libby” and “you can draw whatever conclusions you want from his busy and important schedule” and the fact that lots of journalists with Pullitzers did NOT get leaked to.

Walton will be very defferential to the defense and the defense will take advantage of that deference.

Fitz, on the other hand, will KILL in summation and it won’t really matter at the end of the day WHAT comes out of the defense’s pie hole. IMHO

did you mean prosecution or defense making its case?

I was saying I expect the defense to close with “the prosecution hasn’t made its case.” It certainly was not an editorial comment on my part. Since they do not have a case, I’m saying that they will put the emphasis on the prosecution’s case and simply assert that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. I don’t think it will work, given what I expect Fitz to lay out in close.

Just ask yourself: If there were no oil in Iraq and Iran, would the nominal prez care?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 74

Just ask yourself: If there were no oil in Iraq and Iran, would the nominal prez care?

One word: Somalia.
_

Three points: The playing of Libby’s grand jury testimony to the jurors will hurt him .Two a ton of Fitz’s witnesses confirmed his perjury.Three Libby’s defense witnesses did not rebut his perjury charges by their testimony . An extra bonus point not smart for defense lawyers to upset a judge .

WRT to the third point upsetting the judge – it matters with respect to jury’s perceptions, not with respect to ruling. Any judge is going to follow precedent on their rulings. But, to the extent that an attorney acts out in front of the judge in the jurors presence, they’re taking a chance that the jury will hold that, consciously or not, against the client. Cause juries always like the judge – maybe not in the organized fashion of this jury or prior to reaching a verdict, but they always like/have kind words for the judge.

Hold it. They spent hours prepping the Shooter and THEN decided not to call him? But they aren’t Cheney’s lawyers, they’re Libby’s, right. There’s no privilege there, is there?

Frank Probst @ 77

Hold it. They spent hours prepping the Shooter and THEN decided not to call him? But they aren’t Cheney’s lawyers, they’re Libby’s, right. There’s no privilege there, is there?

I would assume it’s privileged as well.
_

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Looking at Tuckster. He wants to know if Obama is too “testy” and if “Obama is tough enough”? And does Obama “lack substance”? Unbelievable.

If Floppyhead thinks Obama is extra testy and lacks substance and is not very tough – then he’d be a lot like Dubya. Maybe Obama would be a fun guy to have a beer with too.

stingray @ 58

Wells: We spent hours working on preparing Vice President.

Does this imply they spoke to him directly? Would there be any evidence if true?

If they did, then that would have been one hell of a conversation to listen in on!

They probably have a joint defense agreement, which means that if Scooter’s lawyers meet with The Dick with The Dick’s lawyer present, then no, it’s discoverable.

BobbyG @ 74

Oklahoma kiddo @ 74

Just ask yourself: If there were no oil in Iraq and Iran, would the nominal prez care?

One word: Somalia.
_

;0)

THE OIL FACTOR IN SOMALIA

FOUR AMERICAN PETROLEUM GIANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFRICAN NATION BEFORE ITS CIVIL WAR BEGAN. THEY COULD REAP BIG REWARDS IF PEACE IS RESTORED

By MARK FINEMAN
DATELINE: MOGADISHU, Somalia

Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.

My advice:

Watch the Wire. It can only cheer you up.

Frank @ 76

I bet his lawyers were there helping them.

hackworth @ 78

Oklahoma kiddo @ 61

Looking at Tuckster. He wants to know if Obama is too “testy” and if “Obama is tough enough”? And does Obama “lack substance”? Unbelievable.

If Floppyhead thinks Obama is extra testy and lacks substance and is not very tough – then he’d be a lot like Dubya. Maybe Obama would be a fun guy to have a beer with too.

Fun guy to have a beer with?
No doubt. ;0)

susie @ 82

My advice:

Watch the Wire. It can only cheer you up.

I have now watched 36.5 hours of The Wire, all of Seasons 1-3 on DVD. Still lookin’ for a weak frame or line of dialogue. Amazing show.
_

susie @26

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. What never came out in this trial was the power struggle going on in the cabinet at this time: Cheney&Rumsfeld vs Powell. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. These are guys that go WAY BAck in government, and here they were again, with an agenda, ie, Iran and Iraq. If Wilson had omitted the phrase about “at the request of the vp,” the critiscm itself regarding the reasons for going to war would not have had them scurrying. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

If so, how does Rumsfeld’s firing figure in? Do we have BushRove vs CheneyRumsfeld? Who is backing who, and who is winning? Sorry, never seen The Wire.

susie @ 67

No, it would be cheney/rummy-parallel-govenment -with-no-oversight-and-do-whatever-the-heck-they want vs US government clerks, officials and military that actually believe in the constitution.

So, how does this figure with Colin Powell? As far as I could see, he was just a figurehead/frontman, shosen because he was credible. Did he actually pose any threat to BushCo?

BobbyG @ 75

One word: Somalia.
_

Umm, the prospect of oil is still inviting. They have no proven reserves, but there are indications of some oil there, and some natural gas. That’s an ideal situation for PSAs which could maximize profits.

The main reason we don’t know more about the oil situation there is that there’s not been sufficient exploration for definitive assessment of reserves due to political instability. With demand for natural gas (and, therefore, prices) going up, even a couple of hundred billion cubic feet is worth going after–providing the oil companies don’t have to supply their own security for those operations….

Our good friend Jeralyn on HuffPo:
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/can-team-libby-pull-it-of_b_41186.html)

“No one on this jury is going to buy Libby as victim, although they may conclude he was no more mistaken than any other witness. Once the jurors try to figure out motive, even though it’s not a necessary element of the charged crimes, I call a draw. Fitz just didn’t establish motive beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I’m actually surprised that she feels that this is a draw. With Libby not taking the stand and Cheney not testifying all they have to rebut Fitz is the testimony of John (Scoots-was-oh-so-busy)Hannah that Fitz elegantly rebutted by reminding jurors of the St Regis meeting with Judy for 2 hours. Russert absolutely contradicts the defense and was not effectively impeached. The undercurrent of the case, though not explicitly argued (why not, Fitz?) is that Scoots was protecting Darth Cheney’s more than ample backside. That was the motive. Say what you want about what the jury may or may not consider but the fact of the matter is that Scoots lied through his teeth, repeatedly, to keep his Rasputin-like boss out of hot water.
The faulty memory angle just won’t wash. And, at the end of the day, Fitz doesn’t need to prove motive, he only has to prove that Libby lied.

I believe he has done that and the jury will agree.

I think Rumesfeld still very much has his finger in the Pentagon pie. Recall Donald did nothing disloyal to the Bush family. And the Bush administration values loyalty above all else.

All of the speculation on Walton being pissed will be clear after the sentencing phase (assuming a guilty verdict).

Walton could reward all of the bad behavior by sending him to jail. Directly to jail. Do not pass Go, etc.

When I ask myself what is the Bush and Cheney family predicated upon? I think oil, money and power. In what particular order; I do not know.

Thinking about a pardon…

What if, rather than a blanket pardon for all wrongdoing, the POTUS decided to pardon Libby for exactly the charges that he was convicted for — or maybe just the ones that the sentence is significant for.

I couldn’t see how Libby could then be compelled to testify on other issues at that point, because that testimony might well subject him to implicating himself in any number of other ways. So, he could still claim the fifth amendment with no qualms whatsoever.

Only if he is given a blanket pardon for all wrongdoing w.r.t. the Plame affair could be be forced to testify, it seems to me, but IANAL or a legal scholar.

Motive DOES seem to be an important element in this case..

If Scoots believed that what he was saying to the gj was true when he said it- then he’s innocent. Absent any clear motive to decieve- then the jury could just as well believe that he forgot or got confused. Fitz, however, has lots of testimony to skim from in which he may very well demonstrate clear motive at close.

Walton: [to Levine, Russert’s lawyer] Did you ever impart to Russert that the government would waive the FBI thing.

Levine: At the time this happened, we and Fitz were adversaries, we were filing a motion to quash. I called him to say, are you going to raise the argument that any communication Russert had with FBI constituted a waiver. He said no, and I said, okay, I’m not going to brief on it. That has nothing to do with the negotiations we had later.

Am I mistaken or did he not answer the question?

To John Rowland@70 = Agree with all your points with the caveat that i don’t think the jury was exposed to most of the bloodletting between Wells & Assoc. and Judge Walton. I would also add that there were substantial avowals made by Well in his opening-scapegoat for Rove, proof of to busy to remember that were directly made and others that were inferred-testimony of Libby and Cheney- that simply were abandoned in the evidentiary phase. That is almost always a bad thing with a jury, and if I have interpreted the FDL blogging correctly, certainly would be bad in this case. Wells rambled on incessantly in opening and really didn’t back it up with much meat. Fitzgerald will pound him with this in the rebuttal closing.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 91

When I ask myself what is the Bush and Cheney family predicated upon? I think oil, money and power. In what particular order; I do not know.

Power first. That enables the others. Power influences the oil market which then produces the money. They don’t have to immediately benefit. Simply by doing favors for (and having considerable secret knowledge about) their silent partners while in power, they’re able to profit after leaving office.

An example would be the elder Bush facilitating Carlyle after he left office (aided by the government through courtesy intelligence briefings as a former president, etc.).

The Bushes have always sought public office for private gain… otherwise, without the power accruing from that public office, they’d have to work for a living, like everyone else….

Oklahoma kiddo @
90

When I ask myself what is the Bush and Cheney family predicated upon? I think oil, money and power. In what particular order; I do not know.

They are different states of the same thing, like ice, water and water vapor.

susie @
35

Here is Joe Wilson’s article for anyone wanting to read it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07…..r=USERLAND

In particular:”In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions…”

“office” meant whom? Libby?

And Wilson, IMO, made the asumption that his report would be delivered by the CIA to the OVP and read by the VP himself.=, maybe even the P himself. His apparent assumption was false. And, that’s what led to this case….WOW, millions that could have been spent on other things useful.

Isn’t motive always the first question to ask in any criminal inquiry?

bmaz @ 94

To John Rowland@70 = Agree with all your points with the caveat that i don’t think the jury was exposed to most of the bloodletting between Wells & Assoc. and Judge Walton. I would also add that there were substantial avowals made by Well in his opening-scapegoat for Rove, proof of to busy to remember that were directly made and others that were inferred-testimony of Libby and Cheney- that simply were abandoned in the evidentiary phase. That is almost always a bad thing with a jury, and if I have interpreted the FDL blogging correctly, certainly would be bad in this case. Wells rambled on incessantly in opening and really didn’t back it up with much meat. Fitzgerald will pound him with this in the rebuttal closing.

Lemme see, opening statement, opening statement. Here it is.

Oklahoma kiddo @
88

I think Rumesfeld still very much has his finger in the Pentagon pie. Recall Donald did nothing disloyal to the Bush family. And the Bush administration values loyalty above all else.

Utility counts, too. Was Katherine Harris disloyal?

BobbyG @
50

HotFlash @ 45

Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Far and away the baddest show on TV. I have Seasons 1-3 on DVD, Season 4 is up now on HBO. It is simply incredible.
_

The Wire is not only the best show on TV, it’s the best drama I’ve ever experienced … period … TV, movie, play, book, Libby trial … nothing else comes close. You have to watch it on DVD and you have to be patient through the first 3 episodes of season 1, which are like the opening chapters of a 70 chapter epic novel, and which are still paying off well into Season 4.

montag @ 96

An example would be the elder Bush facilitating Carlyle after he left office (aided by the government through courtesy intelligence briefings as a former president, etc.).

That goddamn Carlyle Group bought a controlling interest in my wife’s company (then “The IT Group”) and proceeded to run it into BK, by incentivizing senior execs to indulge in all manner of Enron-esqe stock price pumping shit. Lotta people lost their asses as ITX dropped to pennies and got delisted prior to BK and liquidation.
_

HotFlash @ 100

Utility counts, too. Was Katherine Harris disloyal?

Perhaps, in a way. She was immediately greedy for more status. Only two terms in the House, and she wanted a Senate seat that the national and state Republican party organizations told her not to seek, and she ignored them. Given the degree to which the Republicans depend upon marching on order, the `pugs probably thought her disloyal for her failure to put the party first….

NYT sayin that Libby’s decision to rest is a sign of confidence that Fitz didn’t make his case.

I am with Kevster@87. Motive is not an element for the charges to be decided and the jury instructions will spell out exactly what the necessary elements are that need to be met. the jury will have these in writing when deliberating. Secondly, I think Fleischer’s testimony and the newspaper article admitted to be from Libby’s personal file, both evidencing that Libby’s conduct might be a serious felony crime and that job loss would occur is more than enough for any residual motive skeptics.

Digby upstairs!

Response to my Firepup Valentines:

Tithonia –

No worries! I greatly prefer my Valentines to wear BLUE, although red roses are permitted as Valentine gifts, even though red is not my favorite color of rose. For instance, right now in our house, the RED roses are in a vase on the kitchen counter, but pride of place in the bedroom goes to the dozen YELLOW roses. Yellow roses are so very cheery and optimistic and eternally-youthful-looking (and yes, I can effectively eliminate any thought of stupid songs about roses from Texas if I want to).

LandOfTheFree –

No worries. The reference I made to hallucinogens was to what the defense team’s “brainstorm” of argumentation sounded like to me. And I don’t even eat chocolate, so you can have it all!

HotFlash –

Oooh! That was a wonderfully cozy hug! Thanks — and back atcha! And I’ll make sure later that Mr. K8 enjoys the hug you send, passed along from me! He wishes he had the time to hang out with everyone here too, but makes do with me telling him all about the wonderful FirePups when he gets home from work.

obsessed @ 102

BobbyG @
50

HotFlash @ 45

Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Far and away the baddest show on TV. I have Seasons 1-3 on DVD, Season 4 is up now on HBO. It is simply incredible.
_

The Wire is not only the best show on TV, it’s the best drama I’ve ever experienced … period … TV, movie, play, book, Libby trial … nothing else comes close. You have to watch it on DVD and you have to be patient through the first 3 episodes of season 1, which are like the opening chapters of a 70 chapter epic novel, and which are still paying off well into Season 4.

What you said. I am outa adjectives re that epic show!. Wrote about it recently on my music blog.
_

What’s The Wire?

HotFlash @ 100

Oklahoma kiddo @
88

I think Rumesfeld still very much has his finger in the Pentagon pie. Recall Donald did nothing disloyal to the Bush family. And the Bush administration values loyalty above all else.

Utility counts, too. Was Katherine Harris disloyal?

rumsfeld still has a desk at the pentagon

Gregory says on “Hardball” that Bush is going to attack Iran.

“Obsessed with ends that always seem to justify the means, cutting legal corners without any hint of shame, believing that it’s acceptable to say anything in order to win (or at least muddy up) the day’s news cycle?”

Tha majority of the right wing neo-cons are committed to the “noble lie”.

perris @ 110

HotFlash @ 100

Oklahoma kiddo @
88

I think Rumesfeld still very much has his finger in the Pentagon pie. Recall Donald did nothing disloyal to the Bush family. And the Bush administration values loyalty above all else.

Utility counts, too. Was Katherine Harris disloyal?

rumsfeld still has a desk at the pentagon

I thought so. ;0)

Crazy Horse @ 110

What’s The Wire?

The Wire.

Watch it. It’ll ruin you for anything else.
_

Eureka Springs – you have mail.

rwcole @ 104

NYT sayin that Libby’s decision to rest is a sign of confidence that Fitz didn’t make his case.

You mentioned it earlier – but wasn’t the sentence that it MIGHT be a sign of confidence? I’m sure there’s much more to the article – weighing all implications.

HotFlash @ 99

Lemme see, opening statement, opening statement. Here it is.

Wells, from that link:

When the note by the VP refers to the incompetence of others refers to the whole controversy over the 16 words had been caused in great part by the incompetence of the people at the CIA who let the words get into the speech in the first place.

So Mr. Libby because of the incompetence of the CIA had to go into the meat grinder.

Good grief. Maybe it’s best we didn’t hear even more of this crap from Cheney.

Yes a judge is guided by precedent but does that cover his facial expressions, tone and inflection of his voice . You do not mean to infer it means zero to upset a judge .

Is Rumsfeld “working” on Iran? Along with say… Henry the K ?

“Obsessed with ends that always seem to justify the means, cutting legal corners without any hint of shame, believing that it’s acceptable to say anything in order to win (or at least muddy up) the day’s news cycle?”

The majority of the right wing radical neo-cons are committed to the “noble lie”.

Hoflash@99 – did you provide the link to Wells opening in accord or discord with my thought?

Question to fans of The Wire –

I noticed on our TV schedule that it shows up on BET Network. I assume that what’s there are old episodes released for replay there.

As someone who hasn’t seen it yet, do you think I can just dive in to a random old episode on BET (we only have basic cable, no HBO here) and pick up the story even though I’ve missed at least the beginning of the first season?

Or is it too complicated to jump into the stream of things?

Mrs. K8 @ 123

Question to fans of The Wire –

I noticed on our TV schedule that it shows up on BET Network. I assume that what’s there are old episodes released for replay there.

As someone who hasn’t seen it yet, do you think I can just dive in to a random old episode on BET (we only have basic cable, no HBO here) and pick up the story even though I’ve missed at least the beginning of the first season?

Or is it too complicated to jump into the stream of things?

Se the link on my 109, couple of YouTube clips there.

Also, BET will be having to bleep about every 3rd word. Raw stuff.
_

Mrs. K8 @ 107

Response to my Firepup Valentines:

LandOfTheFree –

No worries. The reference I made to hallucinogens was to what the defense team’s “brainstorm” of argumentation sounded like to me. And I don’t even eat chocolate, so you can have it all!

Yes – I was trying to be amusing. I thought your comment that the defense looked as if they were on hallucinogens was funny.

And thanks for the chocolate – my favorite ;)

Danke Bobby G, i don’t get it here in Germany, but awesome storyline and writing credentials… and Agnieska Holland as guest director!!!

Col.Kurtz @
9

I think spending a couple of hours w/Judy at the St.Regis and being giddy about meeting Tommy Cruise says volumns abouy his state of mind.

Maybe the defense will blame Tom Cruise and the Scientologist for Libby’s scrambled mind.

HotFlash @
85

So, how does this figure with Colin Powell? As far as I could see, he was just a figurehead/frontman, shosen because he was credible. Did he actually pose any threat to BushCo?

and how does this figure with George Tenant?
Condi was able to stab him in the back… he’s gone and she’s promoted.

Cheney set up the Bush Administration 2000 with several figure heads (ONeill?).

Some rose, some fell.

Condi proved to be more of a survivor than most.

Retired New York City detective did not see many lawyers who were fool enough to upset judges.Judges are no fools know how to work off and around precedents.But hey not a lawyer just knew not to upset judges .

LandOfTheFree @ 125

Mrs. K8 @ 107

Response to my Firepup Valentines:

LandOfTheFree –

No worries. The reference I made to hallucinogens was to what the defense team’s “brainstorm” of argumentation sounded like to me. And I don’t even eat chocolate, so you can have it all!

Yes – I was trying to be amusing. I thought your comment that the defense looked as if they were on hallucinogens was funny.

And thanks for the chocolate – my favorite ;)

The way my sisters act, chocolate IS some sort of hallucinogen for them. They end up looking and sounding like purring cats. And of course they think I’m un-American, or maybe even an extra-terrestrial because I don’t care for any kind of sweets.*

* Except cheesecake. I’m a sucker for cheesecake — although it’s more the cheese than the sweetness. So to spare myself any cheesecake binges, we just don’t bring any into the house. And we leave the restaurant without looking at the dessert menu.

Libby’s defense is a big wish for one confused juror to go hung jury .Otherwise he has no defense .

Response to :

57: Land of the free:

“My gut instinct is that there is no Bush/Rove vs. Cheney/Rumsfeld.”
and
87, Hotflash: “So, how does this figure with Colin Powell”

It was more like Bush/Rove parallel with Cheney/Rumsfeld governmentS vs. Powell,Joint-Cheifs of Staff and all the other stiffs who actually believed in the constitution, the plans developed by the military, the clerks and government employees who developed reconstruction plans, who saw life-long dedicated employees replaced by dimwits a-la-FEMA-your-doing-a-heck-of-ajob -Brownie types.

WHY did the office of the vice president ask the CIA to look into yellow cake in africa in the first place when the-Ambassador-of-Niger-said-it-wasn’t-so along with the IAEA? This is not a vice president’s position, it was a State Department responsibility, ie Colin Powell, then SOS.

I still contend that Wilson’s OP_ED in NYT letter would have long been forgotten by Libby/Cheney had he not mentioned their office in his piece. He invaded thier turf privacy. And Libby had to correct it.

BobbyG @ 109

obsessed @ 102

BobbyG @
50

HotFlash @ 45

Sorry, never seen The Wire.

Far and away the baddest show on TV. I have Seasons 1-3 on DVD, Season 4 is up now on HBO. It is simply incredible.
_

The Wire is not only the best show on TV, it’s the best drama I’ve ever experienced … period … TV, movie, play, book, Libby trial … nothing else comes close. You have to watch it on DVD and you have to be patient through the first 3 episodes of season 1, which are like the opening chapters of a 70 chapter epic novel, and which are still paying off well into Season 4.

What you said. I am outa adjectives re that epic show!. Wrote about it recently on my music blog.
_

I checked out what you wrote. So I get the impression that if I’ve missed the first few episodes, I should skip it unless I get a DVD, or a second chance to see it on BET or elsewhere from the very beginning.

Now that I note that there’s enough violence to issue a warning to “the squeamish” — that might be enough for me not to bother. I have a very hard time with explicit violence. Gets my PTSD flaring up.

John Rowland@118 – certainly not, just that the majority of the bad mojo between Walton and Well et. al. likely was not seen by the jury; but I have no doubt they picked up some inclination.

HotFlash @ 86

susie @26

I think it wasn’t that libby/cheney were “focused intently on combatting the criticisms of Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson,”

Libby and Cheney were focused on Wilson’s assertion that he was sent by them through the CIA. What never came out in this trial was the power struggle going on in the cabinet at this time: Cheney&Rumsfeld vs Powell. It was the outing of their machinations that troubled Libby/Cheney, that they were running a parellel administration from OVP/Defense offices. These are guys that go WAY BAck in government, and here they were again, with an agenda, ie, Iran and Iraq. If Wilson had omitted the phrase about “at the request of the vp,” the critiscm itself regarding the reasons for going to war would not have had them scurrying. This was a turf war. The Wire on 1600 Penn Ave.

If so, how does Rumsfeld’s firing figure in? Do we have BushRove vs CheneyRumsfeld? Who is backing who, and who is winning? Sorry, never seen The Wire.

susie @ 67

No, it would be cheney/rummy-parallel-govenment -with-no-oversight-and-do-whatever-the-heck-they want vs US government clerks, officials and military that actually believe in the constitution.

So, how does this figure with Colin Powell? As far as I could see, he was just a figurehead/frontman, shosen because he was credible. Did he actually pose any threat to BushCo?

Yes. Powell is not of a criminal nature. He may also have been star-struck when he entered into a criminal alliance for the purpose of a legitimate goal (bright shiny star): Peace on Earth.

Any organized crime network is going to have internecine conflicts. Those are accepted and dealt with in violence and/or diplomacy outside of the general public’s view. For the general public they have a completely different image based on one precept: law abiding citizen.

Criminality, once the line is crossed, becomes purely a purely a state of mind based on rationalizing ones human actions relative to
abstract rules (laws) of a society.

Point is, these people are professionals of the highest order. Libby’s a soldier, name rank and serial number only, death before dishonor[ing your fellow crime family members].

Powell couldn’t pull it off. Rumsfeld’s gone underground but is totally active.

I can’t imagine anyone on the top tier (8-10 people) rolling on anyone else. It’s surprising there haven’t been any unusual deaths.

Oh yea. And the path of destruction Bush left behind himself up to and including the Texas Rangers’ Ameriquest Stadium. Not a single smoking gun to be had in any of these scandals. Pick you own, too many to name. Somebodies holding on to a lot of evidence somewhere. This is how criminal organizations maintain solidarity and keep evry member in order.

Jim @
97

….WOW, millions that could have been spent on other things useful.

What millions?

I hate to diverge and talk about the Wire here, but since I brought it up……… The reason to watch The Wire is it gives a very clear picture of mob-boss and “turf-war” mentality, which, in my mind, relates directly to the trial of “Scooter” Libby. It is R-rated for a very good reason, it is not a show for children. The show should be watched from the beginning season, in so far as you get to know the characters and it is extremely good acting and writing.

Scooter to Barksdale is Cheney to Stringer?

Prosecution should have asked old Scooter to name the titles for each of the Star Trek TV episodes. Scooter is supposedly a Star War trivia expert. No problem with his memory on this subject.

136, sweetgumroot:
“It’s surprising there haven’t been any unusual deaths.”

not counting the american troops, ally troops and officials and civilians of the middle east, afghanistan, etc……

Oklahoma kiddo @ 89

I think Rumesfeld still very much has his finger in the Pentagon pie. Recall Donald did nothing disloyal to the Bush family. And the Bush administration values loyalty above all else.

From what I have heard, this is why Rumsfeld was in that position. He was also a convenient punching bag/whipping boy. When time came for him to leave, he did so without a fuss. Rummy was a great follower, just like Scooter.

susie @ 139

136, sweetgumroot:
“It’s surprising there haven’t been any unusual deaths.”

not counting the american troops, ally troops and officials and civilians of the middle east, afghanistan, etc……

Yes. Thank you.

I think Juan Cole has already done something like this, but perhaps someone would like to go through this list and evaluate whether the EP Device attacks could actually make up the numbers of attacks/deaths that the US Military has asserted.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

For on thing, it seems that the IED attacks on vehicles are predominantly in the towns of the Sunni Triangle, Mosul, and other regions…the number in Baghdad and Shiite areas of control are actually quite low. And I understand that US forces really stopped going into many Shiite areas in Baghdad like Sadr city. So at least SOME of these presumptively EPD attacks must occur in Sunni areas.

So are the Sunnis being supplied by the Iranian Government as well?

Or is Bush asserting that the Sadrists are going into Fallujah simply to attack US patrols? I guess it’s a martyrdom mission, as any Sunni that caught them would kill them before they would be able to plant the IED and certainly would detect them by the time that the member of the Shiite Badr Brigade or Mahdi Army was able to detonate the bomb when a US humvee hapened to cruise by.

litigatormom @ 79

stingray @ 58

Wells: We spent hours working on preparing Vice President.

Does this imply they spoke to him directly? Would there be any evidence if true?

If they did, then that would have been one hell of a conversation to listen in on!

They probably have a joint defense agreement, which means that if Scooter’s lawyers meet with The Dick with The Dick’s lawyer present, then no, it’s discoverable.

Sorry for the missing “NOT.” The last clause should say, “then no, it’s NOT discoverable.”

NOT IMPORTANT?

I thought Scooter had notes about how the President himself was unhappy that Wilson was gaining credibility. That Rove said to Cooper that the media shouldn’t make Wilson a hero. That the VP said they were a day late in stanching the story.

That Libby himself could not think of a single case where the President had been asked to DECLASSIFY a document using his Presidential power…something that Libby and Cheney themselves requested be done.

Scooter was UNIQUELY assigned by the President to put his neck in the meatgrinder!

The Defense didn’t indicate that any of thoes other myriad things that Libby was “briefed about” was actually tasked to him to do anything about. Did he have to act on any of these AQ threats? Did he have to deal in any way with Liberia, other than to get Cheneys grunting assertion that Liberia wasn’t Libya…or an astrological sign?

Where did any of that vast briefing list indicate that this was much more than any of us looking through a World News section of Yahoo! News with perhaps some juicy classified bits thrown in.

Libby’s BIG job was channeling the info to WHIG to make the case for invasion, ands to protect the wall of secrecy around that effort from critics like Wilson.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 98

Isn’t motive always the first question to ask in any criminal inquiry?

No, not always. It depends on the nature of the crime, and the kind of evidence you have.
In a murder case, eyewitness testimony and DNA evidence means motive is not so important. Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, not so important.

In a perjury case/false statements/obstruction case, knowledge of falsity, or intent to obstruct, is an element of the crime. Knowledge of falsity does not require proof of motive. It requires proof that the person knew that what he was saying was false when he said it. In a case where the defense is “I forgot” then you have to show (a) he had access to the true facts; (b)he acted inconsistently with having forgotten. Motive is a way of proving the second element, but it’s not the only way.

Here, Fitz presented evidence of both elements, and that testimony is essentially unrebutted. Libby knew about Plame, and he told other people about Plame just days before, according to his own account, he learned about Plame “as if for the first time.” It’s one thing to forget something you knew a month ago. It’s another thing to forget something you knew three days ago, especially when you’ve been talking to people about it during the entire month long period.

The MOTIVE for Scooter’s claim of forgetfulness is obvious: he knew there was documentary evidence that he had learned about Plame a month earlier, and he wanted to make it seem like he could not have been the leaker. Even though he hadn’t leaked to Novak, at least not directly, he didn’t want to admit that he had known about Plame during the period in which Novak was writing his article. So he used the “Steve Martin Defense”: I forGOT.

The only “evidence” in support of Libby’s belief in the truthfulness of his “I forGOT” defense is an argument that “busy people can forget stuff.” Arguments are not evidence. Arguments have to be based on evidence. I don’t think there is enough to create a reasonable doubt.

Further argumentative poster sayeth not. I have a hearing tomorrow morning. Wish me luck!

litigatormom @ 144

Oklahoma kiddo @ 98

Isn’t motive always the first question to ask in any criminal inquiry?

No, not always. It depends on the nature of the crime, and the kind of evidence you have.
In a murder case, eyewitness testimony and DNA evidence means motive is not so important. Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, not so important.

This time, an unnecessary “NOT.” The last sentence should read, “Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, more important.”

Clearly, it is NOT NOT time for me to go home and relax.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 111

Gregory says on “Hardball” that Bush is going to attack Iran.

Oh, goody.

Is it possible, after conviction (assuming there is one), for Libby to plea bargain by giving up Cheney or Bush? Or is that not possible at this point?

Miss P. @
147

Is it possible, after conviction (assuming there is one), for Libby to plea bargain by giving up Cheney or Bush? Or is that not possible at this point?

That’s the whole reason Fitz went down this rabbit hole to begin with. To get Libby in a vice, with jail time hanging over his head, to compel him to give up Cheney. SOP for a prosecutor working his way slowly upward through a chain of corruption.

It does not matter if Libby’s lawyers upset judge Walton in front of the jurors or not .Can tell you from New York City detective work you do not upset judges .Remind what does the term judge mean. They got mucho power and juice and do pay back . But back to Libby’s lawyers they have too many of Fitz’s witnesses confirming Libby’s perjury via their testimony .Cannot see the jury doubting so many of them .But hey learned way back juries can be so unpredictable .Lost solid cases with unpredictable juries Guess the OJ Trial is the best public example . I mean how do you doubt DNA .

Miss P. @
147

Is it possible, after conviction (assuming there is one), for Libby to plea bargain by giving up Cheney or Bush? Or is that not possible at this point?

Personally, I doubt that there will be anything but a hung jury. A vew loyal Dem jurors will vote to convict because they hate Republicans. A few jurors will think there is reasonable doubt.
So, even if there is a guilty verdict, IMO Libby will be pardoned immediately. He is one loyal soldier and the VP and P know it.

John Rowland @
149

But hey learned way back juries can be so unpredictable. Lost solid cases with unpredictable juries Guess the OJ Trial is the best public example . I mean how do you doubt DNA .

This is why I now fear that the entire charade devised by Team Libby has been an orchestrated attempt to appeal to one, solitary, lone, O’Reilly fanatic that they have installed on the jury.

How else to explain the barrage of irrelevancies that the judge has unaccountably allowed as evidence? Rove? Cheney? Bartlett, et al? Piffle! Which of them has anything to do with whether Libby lied to investigators?

Sad to say it looks like it could be in the bag for Libby, by virtue of one well placed wingnut in the deliberation room…

I still think Libby’s best defense is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

I mean, only someone insane would out a covert CIA agent (and her cover CIA company) whose responsibility involved protecting America from any terrorists getting WMD to use in killing U.S. citizens, right? Insane, right? Stark raving mad, right? Crazy, crazy, crazy, right?

I rest my case.

Leakwater is a better name for this show than “CIA Leak Case.” Nixon had Watergate, the Clintons had Whitewater. This is Leakwater. See also “The Leaker,” a John Sherffius cartoon of July 11, 2005, which shows Karl Rove taking a leak on the CIA seal.
The nation’s disinterested mind awaits a winning title. When we hear one, we may start to take notice.

Jwoods @
20

BobbyG @ 18

I’m still waiting for a persuasive argument regarding exactly what vital national interest was served by publicly identifying Valerie Plame and her job.

Putting aside all the purported POTUS/VPOTUS ad hoc insta-declass authority, CPD vs WINPAC, “classified vs covert” red herring blabbity-blab ad nauseum stuff.

WHAT legit national interest was served?

These scummy pricks.
_

You won’t find any rational for outing Plame. She was “fair game” as Rove puts it.

Their idea, stated publicly, was that she ‘entered the game’ by pushing to have her husband go to Niger and debunk the yellowcake allegation. But, they were wrong about her motivation and they were wrong that she initiated anything since the request for information came from Cheney’s office. So, their reasoning for making her ‘fair game’ was bogus.

However, their logic is so completely off track that they ignored the LAW. What’s the matter with Republicans and the LAW? Have they NO values? I think it stems from all those years when Democrats were in charge and Republicans began to disregard Democrat Law as irrelevant. Now they’re finding out that LAW is LAW and they can be nailed to the wall for it and can’t even be saved by conservative DC Circuit judges since those judges now know Bush is roasted lame duck and have absolutely no incentive to help him out.

I also have to agree that without any obvious national interest being served by the outing, Bush & Co. just look stupid, petty and criminal.

The Oracle @
152

I still think Libby’s best defense is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

I mean, only someone insane would out a covert CIA agent (and her cover CIA company) whose responsibility involved protecting America from any terrorists getting WMD to use in killing U.S. citizens, right? Insane, right? Stark raving mad, right? Crazy, crazy, crazy, right?

I rest my case.

To say nothing of scribbling notes about Tom Cruise on the covers of sensitive CIA documents in the OVP. Vanquishing the careers of dedicated underlings must have gotten a tad boring for him that day.
Perhaps it was a Wednesday….