Throughout this trial, your insights into the witnesses, and the defendant, made we wonder what you might think of Libby’s book, The Apprentice (1996). How might you characterize his literary ambitions? I admit a bit of an English Major bias in writing my own take, In Defense of Scooter Libby, a few days ago.

Frankly, I’m surprised more people haven’t talked about what’s actually in this curious book.

The play did, however, lack the punch the courtroom had, not because it wasn’t an excellent production (it was, save for the one playing Richmond), but because it was an artifice, after all. What I saw in court was all too real and immediate.

I’ll never forget it.

Apologies, but in your absence, some nit from OH took one of your calls (#260). Hopefully no harm done.
None intended. *g*

The stench of Plamegate wreaks,

I think the word you’re reaching for here is “reeks.” The word you used, “wreaks” means to work or cause, as in, “to wreak havoc.”

kim says:

February 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm

All that ‘fire and damning content’ was not put in evidence during a time when the accused could confront it. All Fitz’s ‘passion’ was thoroughly unconstitutional, and you should have recognized it.

erh, kim — just a little trial law primer,
here — in summation, the prosecution is allowed
to comment on the evidence entered at
trial. the jurors are free to decide whose
comments they find most resonant. that is how
our system works. the jurors may well be
influenced by arguments — arguments are not
themselves evidence — but that is
the way closing arguments work. . .

far from being un-constitutional, it is
precisely the process our constitution
envisions for criminal proceedings. . .

if you are referring to libby’s choice
not to testify — his 5th amendment rights
are only a shield — not a sword. and, while
fitz, the prosecution, is not allowed to make
negative comments about his refusal to take
the stand in his own defense, fitz is absolutely
allowed to characterize libby’s grand jury
testimony as unworthy of belief, given
the parade of nine witnesses contradicting
almost all of it. by my count, seven of those
witnesses were wholly unimpeached by the
defense.

the constitution contemplates that, in a
fair trial, the truth will out, and a liar
will be found guilty.

a happy friday for the american people.

now, who’s up next? dick cheney.

…and that went to his state of mind in regards to LYING!

FITZ: One thing that’s really important, Schmall told him, this is a big deal, every intell service, whether innocent or not, they could arrest, torture, kill them. If you’re sitting ont eh beach as a 21 year old, and you say, what you did, that can get people killed. If someone brought to your attention, you could get some people killed, that better be important, certainly NSA to VP in time of war.

Sidebar.

5:01

Just so we’re perfectly clear, I’m talking about Libby’s state of mind. They’re saying he’s like a 21 year kid not remembering anything after the summer. Schmall did not know about Plame. He’s saying that if this happens, you can get people killed. For [Libby’s] state of mind, When you’re reading about a front company being exposed. Isn’t that important. They want to tell you the wife wasn’t important until later. They’re saying it was important enough to read on July 14. Important when someone tells you, harm can happen. And unimportant when facts prove defendant told a lie.

…..
DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS…If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don’t you think FBI deserves straight answers. When you go in that jury room, you commonsense will tell you hthat he made a gamble. He threw sand in the eyes of the FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty you give truth back.”

5:16

Scooter, looking impassive at this point.

Walton: Sometimes during course of argument. Lawyers say things they don’t mean to say. I want to say a couple of things to MAKE SURE. [There was] reference to AG guidelines, those were admitted for a limited purpose, so you could assess whether Fitz’ interaction was consistent with those guidelines. Argument that Libby would have been aware of those guidelines. There is no evidence before you…[Note: actually there was…Libby’s initial refusal to sign waiver, and this is in evidence].

Walton: The truth of whether someone could be harmed based on disclosure of covert identity should not [?] be dismissed. What is relevant here is what, if any impact, this had on {Libby’s] state of mind. “

So Walton NEVER said that Fitz should be IGNORED…in fact he supported precisely what Fitz said.

But it’s always amazing that the wingbats channel things that didn’t ever happen! And then claim that it’s TRUE!