Muzzy @
110

Sparkles the Iguana @ 94

� In violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald made one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not “the first official” to reveal Plame’s identity.

What is she talking about here?? Fitz said about 118 times at the presser that he was not going to “go outside the four corners of the indictment.”

She is misrepresenting what Fitz said. Fitz said Libby was the “first known official”. Big difference. Based on available information, it was a true statement at the time. You can’t blame someone for not knowing what people are witholding or lying about and his choice of words accounted for that.

This one bothers me a bit. Wasn’t Armitage’s role known by the DoJ investigators before Fitz even got the case?

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Fitz knew from the beginning that Armitage had been one of two sources for Novak’s July 2003 column that outed Plame, but he didn’t know until Bob Woodward came forward in November 2005 that Armitage had also told Woodward Mrs. Wilson’s identity. Thus what Fitz thought at the time (October 2005) was that Libby had been the first official to tell someone in June 2003 that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA.

from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/on-the-qt.html :

“In the 1997 film L.A. Confidential (screenplay Brian Helgeland, based on a novel by James Ellroy), Sid Hudgens (played by Danny DeVito) signs off his newspaper columns with “off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush.”. This was taken up as the film’s tagline in advertising posters.”

I plan to honor the pres first thing in the morning- while sitting.

If I’m understanderating correctly, you will also be manufacturing a small scale replica of the Boy who would be King, that may or may not float!

I plan to honor the pres first thing in the morning- while sitting.

I’ll hand you a bit of paper… here, how about a clump of WaPo…

Sparkles the Iguana @ 94

� In violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald made one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not “the first official” to reveal Plame’s identity.

What is she talking about here?? Fitz said about 118 times at the presser that he was not going to “go outside the four corners of the indictment.”

She is misrepresenting what Fitz said. Fitz said Libby was the “first known official”. Big difference. Based on available information, it was a true statement at the time. You can’t blame someone for not knowing what people are witholding or lying about and his choice of words accounted for that.

This one bothers me a bit. Wasn’t Armitage’s role known by the DoJ investigators before Fitz even got the case?

Suzanne @
104

Balrog, I believe there is a rating system created so that each parent doesn’t have to ask a person involved in the film if the film is suitable for children.

Sorry folks, I thought the Snark would be obvious.

Jane, wherever you are, I hope that you still want the snark as you proceed. You have my full support.

BALROG – I figured you were being either incredibly snarky or incredibly stupid. I figured it was most likely the former!

1. Have you or your husband contributed to the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund

2. Did you discuss your OPED in advance with any member of Libby’s legal team…or send them a copy in advance of publication?

I am not saying it is always a good thing since as Grisham and others point out, it can be used as the final step to legally lynch someone.

I am not saying that Libby is innocent in any way, or in any way eligible for jury nullification. Just the opposite in fact.

I am only saying I wish every American knew about jury nullification and I would be willing to trade someone that should swing for their crimes if the positive benefit was to teach America about this.

(CHS notes: Look, I get that jury nullification is something you support. I also get that you are using the lynching as a rhetorical device to raise people’s eyebrows and bring attention to your comment, and bring the point home about what you are saying. But, honestly, talking about violence and hanging in any way is just not something we encourage here. Period. But because you are newer to the blog, I wanted to be sure you understood that we are very careful with comments that have anything whatsoever to do with violence, even in a rhetorical sense, because we’d rather debate the ideas than the way people may choose to express them with violent language. If you have questions about this, feel free to e-mail me at the contact information above. We have this same requirement for all of our comments, and I didn’t want to let this one pass without you knowing that you need to be more careful in your choice of emphasizing words. Thanks. And now back to my coffee…)