You can’t parallel this to OJ. The prosecutors in that case had little command of the legal system and how to present evidence to jurors.

I can parallel this to OJ anytime I want, thanks to FireDogLake! We’ll soon know whether the Libby prosecutors were competent or not. I fear they will be judged somewhat harshly by history, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless a few parallels Libby and OJ share are that
(1) the media is part of the event
(2) judges and prosecutors are grandstanding to see what kind of press they can generate, i.e. types like Judge Ito and Patrick Fitzgerald who put their own personal ambitions and narcissism ahead of any consideration of the justice system. The rules of evidence, legal procedure, etc… are supposed to be applied equally to all. They’re not, of course, but they’re supposed to be. That’s why justice is “blind”, i.e. wearing a blindfold all the time, which leads me to my next point, about whether there’s been another perjury case like the Libby case prosecuted – ever… You say…

BTW, there has been one perjury case like this one. Remember Ken Starr?
Oh, but that was about sex in the white house. The only thing that outed was Billy’s Willy.

The Libby case is an unprecedented high-profile perjury case, period. I have not read of a similar case ever being prosecuted, and I’ve been looking. But since you bring up Clinton/Starr, let’s take a look.
In the Libby case you have people recalling things, some of whom have cut deals with the prosecutor to get immunity, special favors (be able to have attorneys present at grand jury appearances, things like that), etc… You also have a tape of the defendant’s grand jury testimony.
In the Clinton/Ken Starr case, you had people (Clinton and Monica) recalling things too, you had the videotape of Clinton’s deposition (quibbling over the meaning of “is”, etc…), and in those respects the two cases were quite similar. What set the two cases apart is that in the Clinton case, there was a blue dress from the Gap that had Clinton’s semen on it – - proven by DNA testing… And make no mistake – it was the dress that did Clinton in. He would have walked without the dress.

That’s the kind of evidence that was lacking in the Libby case.

As for those (bmaz) who think…

Pat Fitzgerald is held in almost the highest regard imaginable by nearly everyone who has ever been around him, even his opponents. In this case, Judge Walton made the unprecedented statement that Fitzgerald is the most honest, competent and professional prosecutor he has ever seen.

… Yeah Judge Ito used to tell the lawyers how great they all were too, back in the old OJ days. Don’t you remember? But I get your drift – you think Patrick Fitzgerald is the big hero. Check out your compatriot Jeralyn, who deserves serious props for saying that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. She basically calls Fitz a coward because he didn’t have the balls to go after Cheney directly, instead putting the torch on Libby, hoping to flip him, because that’s how U.S. Attorneys do. It didn’t work. But yeah, Fitz, nice try, you could have been a Guiliani or Spitzer, you could have been a contender, instead of a… But I digress. Ahem. Memo to bmaz: You say…

I have practiced law for 20 years and have known several Federal judges personally, and practiced in front of to many to count.

… I don’t know too many experienced lawyers who confuse the use of “to” with “too”, but there’s a first time for everything! I’m not blaming you, bmaz – our educational system isn’t what it used to be. Please take note – I’m taking you at your word, bad grammar and all, after you’ve all but accused me of lying in a previous post. Shame on you! Peace!

Bong drive-by… I always find that a long wait requires a bit of partaking. Make the time more intersting, if nothing else.

‘ere!!

:-)

The good Doctor! ‘ow the ‘ell have you been, eh?

Ok. The part of DC that skeeved me was the horrible bombed-out hoodz a few blocks east of the WH/Congress complex. Lately I realized that that’s where all the undergound tunnels & complexes are and they can’t have people digging foundations.

Giant undergound complexes under a swamp. That’s gotta cost.

John Edwards used to pre-try his cases in front of dry-run juries and see what worked and what didn’t. Kind of like focus groups. I wonder if Fitz and Wells ran this case in front of focus groups?

I’ve had jury trials that resulted in hung juries on a first trial. Then we retried them with a different jury and it wasn’t even close. Again, Different jury- different result. One of the great lessons in law- learning to live with jury results. The great fun after a trial is talking to jurors- if they talk to you. they definitely will surprise you.

Any lawyers left on this thread?

Didn’t Fitz state that Rove had a different memory of the conversation with Libby than Libby did? If so, did he overstep the evidentiary bounds and what are the consequences?

If counsel doesn’t object to opposing counsel’s jury argument, thus giving trial judge a chance to give curative instruction, then ground for appeal is lost. This matter was addressed in previous post about Jeffereds (sp?) making objection about covert nature of Wilson femme job while Wells had head in his hands. Judge called sidebar. Later gave a curative state of mind instruction.

If you snooze, you lose. Ground not preserved for appeal. Trial court must be given opportunity to address problem.

The Fortress of Solitude by Jonathan Lethem

The waiting is the hardest part… Just ask a Clarkie. :/

Somebody needs to update the following wikipedia articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..#The_Trial

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_cheney

especially appropriate in the dick cheney article would be a section entitled “Cloud over Cheney” Fitz said in his closing argument for Libby trial that cloud was over Cheney. . . .

I heard Nina Totenberg on NPR give a different reading of that quote– She said a “cloud over THE WHITE HOUSE and Dick Cheney…”

Did Marcy miss those three words, or was Nina imagining them? It can make a big difference, and if Marcy left those words out and they were actually spoken, she will probably be excoriated for leaving them out of such a quotable phrase (yes, we know its not a transcript, but will the MSM let it go?)

This is big, because it is so much like John Dean’s “There’s a cancer on the presidency” phrase.

Bob in HI