Fitz

Fitz! Marcy! Jane! Jane! Jane!

I’d be interested to know if/ how letters in support of a semi-similar defendent have been published in the past. And what about the negative letters? Anti- published, pro- not?

Have invitations to Scooter’s pardon party at the Bush Brush Ranch been mailed yet?

Ditto Monica Goodling’s defense.

IANAL. Legally speaking…Do you only think that the letters should be released because Libby is a public figure? Because, I once was asked to write one in support of a teenager who had managed to get himself in some serious trouble. Frankly, I would have been uncomfortable if they had been published in my local newspaper. And, believe me, I’m from a small town, there would have been interest.

It is Comstockian in its complexity and toxicity.

I recall the Ken Lay letters being released. Why should Americans not see who has things to say about Irve, and what those things are?

TSF- both pro and con on Ken Lay?

Thanks Jane! Love that photograph of Fitz – bet he is even more beguiling in person – am soooooo glad you and Marcy and egregious (and Pach?) not only met him but were on scene for the trial…. a bit jealous but really truly happy you did.

Valley Girl @ 3

I’d be interested to know if/ how letters in support of a semi-similar defendent have been published in the past. And what about the negative letters? Anti- published, pro- not?

The Bob Ney letters were released.

I had to laugh when I read Jeffress’s brief the other night. At the top of Page 7, he asserts that he’s just looking out for the privacy of ALL writers, including those who have written in opposition to Libby as well as the supporters. Trying to save them from having to face the outrageous questions that the corporate owned media would be asking…

Anybody wanna buy a bridge?

Libby covered for traitors. Not even Hitler outed his own intel officers.

They don’t want to answer questions, be interviewed in front of real audiences, and keep their records & their very public lives private. I say screw Libby.

The Caste System is alive and well in the USA.

During the trial it became evident that Wells and Jeffress were not going to defend their client by implicating Dick Cheney or George Bush, and thus questions were raised (though never answered) about who, exactly, they were being paid to defend.

Wow, good point. Could that be seen as a breach of legal ethics?

So, if approved, letters from FDLers would be published too? I didn’t write one but everyone okay with that?

I want to see the letters, but I also would like to see who donated to the defense fund and how much they contributed.

A letter on record to a judge over the results of a public trial/verdict should never be considered private. People should have a right to know who and what others say to a judge.

I very much desire to be made aware of whence comes the fiduciary origins of Libby mouthpiece money. Let the sunshine in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYibC1P7UQ

Eureka Springs @ 17

A letter on record to a judge over the results of a public trial/verdict should never be considered private. People should have a right to know who and what others say to a judge.

I agree. If the judge wil read the letters and use them to determine sentencing, then it should be open to the public.

a question – do these letters actually influence judicial decisions? and if so – why?

I wrote one, solai, and it’s fine with me if it’s published.

I see this quite differently than your teenager situation. I doubt he/she had a legal defense fund, and we know he/she is not a public figure in the very highest level of the American government.

Jane, thanks for the link.

I remember that post, but forgot the part about Ney, and didn’t follow the links at the time.

Article here summarizes some of the letters here

Still interested to know how the letters are actually published. EW still visiting you?

I don’t know the law here, but it seems to me that if a judge were to take into account information provided in private letters in deciding whether Libby would serve 3 months or 30 months, the basis of his decision would need to be a matter of public record — and available for review on appeal. I don’t understand how a defendant’s freedom can be decided on the basis of secret evidence. That overcomes, it seems to me, the argument that if we allow outside letters to influence the decision, we should keep them secret to avoid discouraging people from providing that information.

In a case where someone lied to protect someone else, “legal defense fund” can be a euphemism for “hush money.” Isn’t it the job of the court to find out if that applies here?

I can see an argument made to protect John and Jane Doe citizen from disclosure of letters to any Court.

But abso-forking-lutely no way should this Jane Doe be denied from knowing what letters were written by current and former public officials in this case. A case involving the highest levels of our government.

Wow, good point. Could that be seen as a breach of legal ethics?

Oh yeah. Big Time.

(pun originally unintended, but if the shoe fits…).

Loo Hoo. @ 16

I want to see the letters, but I also would like to see who donated to the defense fund and how much they contributed.

I wrote Judge Walton a letter on my best blue Crane stationary and would not object at all if the pro and con letters were made public. In fact I would be proud as a peacock if they became public record.

Suzanne, we’re spending too much time together! See my comment at 21.

solai @ 6

IANAL. Legally speaking…Do you only think that the letters should be released because Libby is a public figure? Because, I once was asked to write one in support of a teenager who had managed to get himself in some serious trouble. Frankly, I would have been uncomfortable if they had been published in my local newspaper. And, believe me, I’m from a small town, there would have been interest.

I can understand you point. This is two sided issue. However, since Libby is a public figure, this adds another element to the mix. I would be very interested to know and read these letters, in particular, if any members of the press wrote on his behalf; Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Woodward, Russert, etc. And, let’s not forget, Fred Thompson was istrumental in Libby’s defense fund. I wonder what these people think about the rule of law and respecting a verdict?

It is in the interest of justice that the letters be released

1) Walton just got appointed to the FISA bench. Because we know that public officials have written letters for Libby, failing to release the letters creates a potential appearance of conflict of interest on Walton’s part.

2) Libby’s defenders have played fast and loose with the facts in public statements — the odds are even greater that they would do so in “sentencing” letters. We cannot expect either Walton or the probation officer to be cognizant of Libby’s full public record; only by releasing the letters prior to sentencing can Walton know what is true, what is distorted, and what is false in those letters.

3) If those letters do play a role in the sentence handed down to Libby, the interests of justice can only be served by their publication.

solai @ 15

So, if approved, letters from FDLers would be published too? I didn’t write one but everyone okay with that?

I sure as hell am. Does anyone have Walton’s email address?

Loo Hoo. @ 21

I wrote one, solai, and it’s fine with me if it’s published.

I see this quite differently than your teenager situation. I doubt he/she had a legal defense fund, and we know he/she is not a public figure in the very highest level of the American government.

And s/he was presumably a minor.

xargaw @ 29

solai @ 6

IANAL. Legally speaking…Do you only think that the letters should be released because Libby is a public figure? Because, I once was asked to write one in support of a teenager who had managed to get himself in some serious trouble. Frankly, I would have been uncomfortable if they had been published in my local newspaper. And, believe me, I’m from a small town, there would have been interest.

I can understand you point. This is two sided issue. However, since Libby is a public figure, this adds another element to the mix. I would be very interested to know and read these letters, in particular, if any members of the press wrote on his behalf; Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Woodward, Russert, etc. And, let’s not forget, Fred Thompson was istrumental in Libby’s defense fund. I wonder what these people think about the rule of law and respecting a verdict?

IOKIYAR.

Loo Hoo. @ 21

I wrote one, solai, and it’s fine with me if it’s published.

I see this quite differently than your teenager situation. I doubt he/she had a legal defense fund, and we know he/she is not a public figure in the very highest level of the American government.

I don’t know where I stand on this. Must give it more thought. I know we deserve to know which public figures are supporting Libby. But I did not know that letters to judges on matters like this are open to publication. Just not sure yet.

What does IOKIYAR stand for, dakine?

Loo Hoo. @ 35

What does IOKIYAR stand for, dakine?

It’s ok if you are republican

Loo Hoo. @ 35

What does IOKIYAR stand for, dakine?

It’s OK if you’re a Republican

LS @ 36

Loo Hoo. @ 35

What does IOKIYAR stand for, dakine?

It’s ok if you are republican

NO IT’S NOT!!!

Loo Hoo. @ 38

LS @ 36

It’s ok if you are republican

NO IT’S NOT!!!

heh…

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this issue. But I would say this: either release them all, or release none.

Letters from public officials should be treated no differently than those coming from the private sector. I am engaging in pre-2000 thinking here. Public service should be encouraged, and a person’s entrance into it should not be used against them. We need good public servants.

The fact that we don’t have them today, and that there is every reason to assume nefarious actvity from the gang presently in charge, shouldn’t be used to set precedent against those who follow, who we so very much hope to be honorable.

One of members of Libby’s defense fund also serves on the Board of Trustees of the local PBS station, you know, the same one that produces the NewsHour and Washington Week.

Yes, but Jayt, he’s a convicted criminal, not just some public servant doing the best he can to make the lives of others better. He helped concoct a war, for heaven’s sake, as you well know.

What’s new with our favorite recruiter?

Did Wells have a fool for a client? Or did Libby have a fool for a lawyer? I mean this guy is going to prison.

I don’t care as much about the letters nearly as much as I do about the money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hCRf9Gzw8

jane,

right now, i’m suffering the toxic effects of kabuki overload. thank you for cutting through the bs…. your writing is theraputic!

I’ve been off googling trying to figure out where the actual text of the letters was published for the Ney case. No luck so far. All I can find are news articles that quote the comments, but w/o name attribution.

I think I need some lawyerly help.

Alice @ 41

One of members of Libby’s defense fund also serves on the Board of Trustees of the local PBS station, you know, the same one that produces the NewsHour and Washington Week.

Ironic you mentioned this for I have the NewsHour on and was just thinking how downhill the once iconic program has devolved since Bush stole the election.

ReElect President Al Gore in 2008. Accept no substitute!

Now that’s rich. In Jeffress’ letter to Judge Walton, he sites Gotti!

newspaperbrat @ 9

Love that photograph of Fitz.

What do you think: Kevin Costner in a made-for-TV movie? Just a random thought.

newspaperbrat, you said a mouthfull. My late parents were charter members of WETA. Elizabeth Campbell was one of my childhood heros.

It is a disgrace what Sharon Percy Rockefeller has let that station become.

It’s pretty rich talking about privacy rights at this stage. Then again, legally enforced secrecy of CIA operatives isn’t a privacy issue per say. I’m glad Fitz is onto this stool and mentioned it. Now there is no way the judge can make the silly ruling in their favor.

Wolfowitz blames media for resignation
‘It tells us more about the media than about the bank,’ he says

Oklahoma kiddo @ 43

Did Wells have a fool for a client? Or did Libby have a fool for a lawyer? I mean this guy is going to prison.

I don’t care as much about the letters nearly as much as I do about the money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hCRf9Gzw8

where libby’s goin, it aint that bad…
ask ivan boesky, or mike milliken
jack abramoff’s doin’ easy time, bob ney too…
they don’t hafta worry abou gettin shanked…
.

Loo Hoo. @ 42

Yes, but Jayt, he’s a convicted criminal, not just some public servant doing the best he can to make the lives of others better. He helped concoct a war, for heaven’s sake, as you well know.

What’s new with our favorite recruiter?

I was talking about public servants who sent letters to the judge, not Libby himself.

And (thanks for asking) the recruiter has been let go by the Indiana National Guard, and fired by the firm he was moonlight recruiting for.

Son is still staying up all night, every night, scared to death that someone’s coming for him. Unfortunately, I left the decision as to w/n to press charges up to him, and I don’t think that he did.

This is interesting:

Orleans Criminal District Court Judge Censured for Seeking Leniency
for Convicted Mobster
An MCC complaint to the Judiciary Commission lead to the public censure of Criminal District Court Judge Frank Marullo. When reputed mobster Anthony Carollo was convicted of racketeering, Judge Marullo wrote a letter seeking leniency from the judge sentencing Mr. Carollo. The MCC learned of Judge Marullo’s request and filed a complaint with the Louisiana Judiciary Commission. The Judiciary Commission found Judge Marullo in violation of Supreme Court rules and publicly censured him for his misconduct.

found here.

Jeffress is just trying to hide all those letters of support for Libby sent from overseas.

You know, the letters from Osama bin Laden and his countless Number Two lieutenants thanking Libby (and his co-conspirators) for outing a covert CIA officer charged with trying to keep nukes and other WMD out of their hands.

You know, letters thanking Libby for blocking Fitzgerald’s investigation into which traitorous White House officials committed the treasonous act of disclosing Valerie Plame-Wilson’s highly classified secret identity to the world.

You know, Libby helping to hide the people in the White House who keep doing things (like starting a war in Iraq and keeping our troops in Iraq) that plays into the hands of the terrorists.

No wonder Jeffress doesn’t want these letters released.

The Oracle @ 55

Jeffress is just trying to hide all those letters of support for Libby sent from overseas.

You know, the letters from Osama bin Laden and his countless Number Two lieutenants thanking Libby (and his co-conspirators) for outing a covert CIA officer charged with trying to keep nukes and other WMD out of their hands.

You know, letters thanking Libby for blocking Fitzgerald’s investigation into which traitorous White House officials committed the treasonous act of disclosing Valerie Plame-Wilson’s highly classified secret identity to the world.

You know, Libby helping to hide the people in the White House who keep doing things (like starting a war in Iraq and keeping our troops in Iraq) that plays into the hands of the terrorists.

No wonder Jeffress doesn’t want these letters released.

I stand agape – do so wish you wrote editorials for the pathetic Washington Post and/or NYT.

okay, then. Looks like the Ney letters are only available online (if they are) to those who can access PACER. I can’t. IANAL.

But, if someone who is AL could check out those letters, it would be interesting to know if they are in original state, or names redacted, etc.

Jeez, where are all the lawyers today?

ccmask, your link doesn’t work (at least for me) at 54.

Valley Girl @ 57

okay, then. Looks like the Ney letters are only available online (if they are) to those who can access PACER. I can’t. IANAL.

Thanks for searching, Valley Girl.

Loo Hoo. @ 58

Valley Girl @ 57

okay, then. Looks like the Ney letters are only available online (if they are) to those who can access PACER. I can’t. IANAL.

Thanks for searching, Valley Girl.

see my edited comment above ;)

I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that more than one of those people lied to the judge in an attempt to benefit Scooter.

Good afternoon from L.A.

An excellent post, JH, for this Memorial Day p.m. About to start backtracking FDL posts & comments from the last couple vacation days (just got back from camping upstate).

The photo of Patrick Fitzgerald giving a speech in the link below is an interesting one. The audio files that go w/it also:

Fitzgerald Amherst Commencement Speech, Q&A

Loo Hoo. @ 58

ccmask, your link doesn’t work (at least for me) at 54.

Try this one…

Well, Jeffress may have momentarily taken leave of his senses, but not to the same extent as this guy.

Thanks for the update on the Libby sentencing!

Let me take this opportunity to encourage everyone to visit Priming the Pump, which has been updated with more articles of impeachment, including an Article of Impeachment against Cheney for the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. This is a workspace — a work in progress. If you can help, please lend a hand!

Bob in HI

Flamethrower @ 61

I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that more than one of those people lied to the judge in an attempt to benefit Scooter.

Why not! After all that’s exactly what Scooter did for them…

Flamethrower @ 61

I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that more than one of those people lied to the judge in an attempt to benefit Scooter.

I would bet that you would win that bet Flamethrower! Just left a message for my lawyer friend – who I hope subscribes to Pacer – in the happy event he would search to see if the letters are available.

Jane Jane Jane, haven’t your proposed to Fitz yet?

(This post is made without the slightest intent of snark and in the interest of the most innocent sort of fun)

Valley Girl @ 57

okay, then. Looks like the Ney letters are only available online (if they are) to those who can access PACER. I can’t. IANAL.

But, if someone who is AL could check out those letters, it would be interesting to know if they are in original state, or names redacted, etc.

Jeez, where are all the lawyers today?

Whoever reads them, tell me if I wrote one, will you? I remember getting an email urging me to write one, but don’t really remember if I did or not.

Howie Klein has a very moving Memorial Day post up at DWT. Oh, and he mentions Cheney and Impeachment.

post here

rapier @ 68

Jane Jane Jane, haven’t your proposed to Fitz yet?

(This post is made without the slightest intent of snark and in the interest of the most innocent sort of fun)

He’s mine, mine, I say

Margot- and this place is usually crawling with lawyers! ;)

ianal, but i am guessing this is a technical question with a tehcnical answer

a — letters such as these *are* typically released and part of the public record

b — letters such as these *are not* typically released and part of the public record

from atrios:

Aspens

I’m less interested in public officials than I am of members of the media industrial complex potentially having their love letters to Scooter released. But, yes, aside from the issue of Scooter’s lawyer acting on behalf of people he doesn’t represent there appears to be an implicit argument that public figures deserve more privacy protection than non-public ones. That’s a novel idea.

Let’s hope the word “blogger” doesn’t give Judge Walton a temporary instant lobotomy as it seems to do to so may people.

my bold.

Valley Girl–I know!
No fair taking a holiday.

selise @ 74

from atrios:

Aspens

I’m less interested in public officials than I am of members of the media industrial complex potentially having their love letters to Scooter released. But, yes, aside from the issue of Scooter’s lawyer acting on behalf of people he doesn’t represent there appears to be an implicit argument that public figures deserve more privacy protection than non-public ones. That’s a novel idea.

Let’s hope the word “blogger” doesn’t give Judge Walton a temporary instant lobotomy as it seems to do to so may people.

my bold.

what Atrios said

OT- Before I go off to play catch up & read 2 days worth of FDL, here is another Memorial Day tribute to our troops, an article from Col. W. Patrick Lang, ret:

Dear Hearts Across the Seas

All letters should be public. Writers not wishing their names published with the letter should be allowed to write anonymously. In that case, though, the sentencing judge shouldn’t get to know the author’s identity either, which means a letter from an anonymous FDL reader gets the same weight as an anonymous letter from Barbara Comstock. As a slight measure of astroturfing/spamming prevention it could be set up like newspaper LTTE’s, where you have to send your name/address/phone number. Some court clerk calls you to verify the letter, then separates the identifying info from it before handing it off to the judge.

“No End in Sight” is a documentary on the Iraq war coming out in August. It is highly recommended:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..more-17781

ccmask @ 13

They don’t want to answer questions, be interviewed in front of real audiences, and keep their records & their very public lives private. I say screw Libby.

The Caste System is alive and well in the USA.

Hey ccmask, I agree with you 100% … the truth is that the caste system exists in all societies, even the so- called communist and socialist ones. What is appalling, is the extent to which this administration has leveraged its power to suit its own interests and those of their friends … reminds me of France just before the revolution.
I hope all of you will redouble your efforts to restore democracy to America through peaceful, honest means. Those who put their lives on the line to defend us, deserve no less.

solai @ 15

So, if approved, letters from FDLers would be published too? I didn’t write one but everyone okay with that?

I didn’t specifically identify myself as a FirePup, but I’d be more than happy for my snail-mail to be made public. I’m proud of what I said in favor of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

————————————————————————
‘PupMap (625 pins!), Chat, Calendar, Timeline (Click here or on my .SIG above)

none @ 78

All letters should be public. Writers not wishing their names published with the letter should be allowed to write anonymously. In that case, though, the sentencing judge shouldn’t get to know the author’s identity either, which means a letter from an anonymous FDL reader gets the same weight as an anonymous letter from Barbara Comstock. As a slight measure of astroturfing/spamming prevention it could be set up like newspaper LTTE’s, where you have to send your name/address/phone number. Some court clerk calls you to verify the letter, then separates the identifying info from it before handing it off to the judge.

I like it!

Marie Roget @ 77

OT- Before I go off to play catch up & read 2 days worth of FDL, here is another Memorial Day tribute to our troops, an article from Col. W. Patrick Lang, ret:

Dear Hearts Across the Seas

I take no responsibility, if my “Little Johnny” joke on Pach’s Saturday night post makes you spew all over your computer.

Alice @ 41,
Good post at your blog.
In addition to calling/writing to the station,
I suggest that you visit the WETA station in Alexandria (I think you are local) with prior appt and ask to inspect the community file.
(All TV stations have to maintain a community/public file that is open to public. At the TV license renewal time, FCC actually looks at the file.) Inspect the public file and ask to insert your complaint. And then let others know. Hopefully, some more locals (I for one) will do the same to build up the file re board members’ conflict of interest.

I’ll have to get user status ‘priming the pump’ in a minute. Till then, I found McKinney’s already primed the pump quite a bit. I just happen to be looking around to see if I could find them earlier today.

I think a current member can brush them off a bit. They read truer and truer each day passing. She even includes ‘violating oath’ which I would; and NSA spying w/o warrant FISA violations, which I would too.

http://www.democrats.com/McKin…..mpeachment

Also, SOS, you know BBN is up for an NSF project?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar…..twork.html

Peace

The conflict between mods and rockers was the butt of a joke in The Beatles’ film A Hard Day’s Night. At a press conference, a reporter asks Ringo Starr, “Are you a mod or a rocker?”, to which he replies, “No, I’m a mocker.”

We are all mockers now.

One has to wonder whether there was any implicit consequence of not falling on his sword, as it were. As in, “if you don’t clam up, your defense fund is likely to dry up.”

Badwater @ 4

Have invitations to Scooter’s pardon party at the Bush Brush Ranch been mailed yet?

One really has to wonder why our Justice system goes through such a long and involved process just too have a criminal pardoned? Is this process a waste of taxpayers money?

Alice @ 41

One of members of Libby’s defense fund also serves on the Board of Trustees of the local PBS station, you know, the same one that produces the NewsHour and Washington Week.

There’s that damn liberal media again. The same liberal media that tarnished the reputation of Wolfy of World Bank.

Utterly amazing that the media that dutifully delivers their carefully dictated, word-for-word propaganda for them is constantly berated by them as librul commies.

Tis a very clever game.

ww @ 87

One has to wonder whether there was any implicit consequence of not falling on his sword, as it were. As in, “if you don’t clam up, your defense fund is likely to dry up.”

And/or worse: “You don’t really want us to release the photographs and survielance tapes your family will have to endure now do you Scooter?”

Marie Roget @ 62

Good afternoon from L.A.

An excellent post, JH, for this Memorial Day p.m. About to start backtracking FDL posts & comments from the last couple vacation days (just got back from camping upstate).

The photo of Patrick Fitzgerald giving a speech in the link below is an interesting one. The audio files that go w/it also:

Fitzgerald Amherst Commencement Speech, Q&A

How was it up near Lompoc?

[I am 4 days from Alaska…]

newspaperbrat @ 89

ww @ 87

One has to wonder whether there was any implicit consequence of not falling on his sword, as it were. As in, “if you don’t clam up, your defense fund is likely to dry up.”

And/or worse: “You don’t really want us to release the photographs and survielance tapes your family will have to endure now do you Scooter?”

Jeff Gannon is a top.

One of the arguments for not making the letters public was that it would discourage future letter writers of supporting someone in writing.

Why would you go to the trouble of writing gushing letters of praise for someone that you truly believed was a good person and deserved the lightest possible sentence, and be concerned about who found out? You either believe in them, or you don’t(OR YOUR LYING!).

To me it is really the same argument that Cheney used to prop up his justification of his double super-secret energy task force meetings(if they are not secret, people will not be candid!)

I hope that the courts do not fall for it twice.

Alice @ 76

selise @ 74

from atrios:

my bold.

what Atrios said

Contributors to the Libby defense fund are Connected at their r$$ts…

Here’s to Walton busting up their root system a bit!

RSA @ 48

newspaperbrat @ 9

Love that photograph of Fitz.

What do you think: Kevin Costner in a made-for-TV movie? Just a random thought.

No good. He played Jim Garrison in JFK.

StCroixBoy @ 93

One of the arguments for not making the letters public was that it would discourage future letter writers of supporting someone in writing.

Why would you go to the trouble of writing gushing letters of praise for someone that you truly believed was a good person and deserved the lightest possible sentence, and be concerned about who found out? You either believe in them, or you don’t(OR YOUR LYING!).

To me it is really the same argument that Cheney used to prop up his justification of his double super-secret energy task force meetings(if they are not secret, people will not be candid!)

I hope that the courts do not fall for it twice.

Yes – I don’t get it. If Scooter’s such a good guy, why wouldn’t you be proud to put your name in ink to a letter in support of him, and then say, proudly afterwards, yeah, I did that.

And I don’t think it doesn’t matter who you’re supporting, although in the case of the tenager, I’d think that protecting his/her identity would count for something if you were in the juvenile system. Otherwise, there’s a reason court proceedings are public – it’s to give the system transparency. (I know, Bushies can only count four letters in that one.)

Otherwise, if you don’t want people to read it, don’t write it.

Jeez.

Blank Kludge @ 84

… Also, SOS, you know BBN is up for an NSF project?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ar…..twork.html

Yep, B.K. Cool. Us ex-BBNers have our own Google Group & we keep up with doin’s back @ the old stand. Tnx! :)

————————————————————————
‘PupMap (625 pins!), Chat, Calendar, Timeline (Click here or on my .SIG above)

evenin’ Firedogs

RSA -

you must have missed the casting threads -

Liev Schreiber is Fitz
Jeff Bridges is Ambassador Wilson
Naomi Watts is Ms. Plame
Phillip Seymour Hoffman is Rove
Richard Dreyfuss is Cheney
Judy Davis is Queen of All Eye-Rack
Kevin Spacey is Irving
Jeffrey Wright is Ted Give Scooter Back To Me ! Wells
John C. Reilly is the Whore Russert
Stockard Channing is Comstock
Linda Fiorentino is Mrs. Scooter
Signorney Weaver is Matalin

Holly Hunter is Marcy
Emma Thompson is Christy
Kate Blanchett is Jane :)

have your people IM my people

oh and p.s. I wrote a letter to Judge Walton – puhleeze make it public !

Good point, StCroixBoy. If you’re embarrassed about having written a letter, perhaps you shouldn’t have written it!

If letters of support for a crooked Congressman like Ney get published, I do not see how the letters of support for Scooter get withheld.

A 6-degrees-of-Scooter-Libby corruption database should be a snap for the blogosphere to assemble once the names come out.

Let the sun shine in.

newspaperbrat @ 39

Loo Hoo. @ 38

NO IT’S NOT!!!

heh…

Comey is way o.k. in my book. Have you ever read Kevin Phillips book “The American Dynasty” Phillips is/was a Republican! The “real” Republicans are freaked out by the radically wrong Bush administration.

I guess in the end the kabuki just got too tough to sustain…

I’ve never used the term kabuki for the weirdness of DC political machinations, but see it used a lot on the web. Neither wikipedia nor urban dictionary even defines political kabuki, let alone attempts an etymology. Anyone here know where the term comes from?

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

new post right next door

kathleen @ 101

newspaperbrat @ 39

heh…

Comey is way o.k. in my book. Have you ever read Kevin Phillips book “The American Dynasty” Phillips is/was a Republican! The “real” Republicans are freaked out by the radically wrong Bush administration.

Hmmm…but which are the “real” Republicans – the ones like Phillips who are freaked out by Bush, or the Bush/Robertson wing of the GOP that controls its destiny?

albert fall @ 100

A 6-degrees-of-Scooter-Libby corruption database should be a snap for the blogosphere to assemble once the names come out.

You mean like this?

Here’s a great story that ought to make the dems wish they had voted differently on the Iraq supplemental from today’s NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…..ref=slogin

I keep hoping that the dems know something we don’t, and voted the way they did for a good reason. Possible?

Sent a letter to the judge asking for the death penalty- hope it’s not released.

FYI, new thread

cbl @ 98

evenin’ Firedogs

RSA -

you must have missed the casting threads -

Liev Schreiber is Fitz
Jeff Bridges is Ambassador Wilson
Naomi Watts is Ms. Plame
Phillip Seymour Hoffman is Rove
Richard Dreyfuss is Cheney
Judy Davis is Queen of All Eye-Rack
Kevin Spacey is Irving
Jeffrey Wright is Ted Give Scooter Back To Me ! Wells
John C. Reilly is the Whore Russert
Stockard Channing is Comstock
Linda Fiorentino is Mrs. Scooter
Signorney Weaver is Matalin

Holly Hunter is Marcy
Emma Thompson is Christy
Kate Blanchett is Jane :)

have your people IM my people

oh and p.s. I wrote a letter to Judge Walton – puhleeze make it public !

Danny Devito for Cheney.
Cloris Leachman for Mary Matalin.
Michael Jackson for Mrs. Libby.

Valley Girl @ 72

Margot- and this place is usually crawling with lawyers! ;)

Well, ya know, that’s what lawyers do….

:-)
(running for cover)

What does KABUKI stand for?

Loo Hoo. @ 107

I keep hoping that the dems know something we don’t, and voted the way they did for a good reason. Possible?

Well, its possible that cold fusion has just been discovered to be available in a DIY home kit, and our energy problems are solved, but I’m not making plans for that.

Alice @ 41

One of members of Libby’s defense fund also serves on the Board of Trustees of the local PBS station, you know, the same one that produces the NewsHour and Washington Week.

And it’s important to remind ourselves that Richard is Tucker’s father. Journalism, and I use that term loosely, and Washington are like two peas in an incestuous pod.

Blank Kludge @ 85

I’ll have to get user status ‘priming the pump’ in a minute. Till then, I found McKinney’s already primed the pump quite a bit. I just happen to be looking around to see if I could find them earlier today.

I think a current member can brush them off a bit. They read truer and truer each day passing. She even includes ‘violating oath’ which I would; and NSA spying w/o warrant FISA violations, which I would too.

http://www.democrats.com/McKin…..mpeachment

. . .

Thanks! McKinney’s is a companion to Elizabeth dela Varga’s collective article of impeachment, which is already up. Priming the Pump is a workspace to bring information on these articles of impeachment together, and then start refining them, using looseheadprop’s suggestions on standards and order of proof, among other considerations.

Bob in HI

Clearly these letters are going to see the light of day.

Probably sooner than later.

This shit-fit was a pre-emptive strike.

That failed.

uh-huh what jane said — way up there.

now, as i argued here on
saturday — there is clearly
a good deal of precedent to
suggest judge walton OUGHT
to allow disclosure — though,
for the moment, the government,
led by patrick fitzgerald, has
taken no position on the matter. . .

the new york times ought to seek a
declaratory-judgment that the letters
are judicial records, and as such, should
be made public.

. . .i note that in cases where access
was held not warranted, it was very narrowly
tailored — only the names of unindicted
co-conspirators, for example, in stoneman were redacted.

the privacy interest was reputational — presumably
the unindicted co-conspirators did not ask to be in-
vestigated. clearly, anyone who wrote a letter for
mr. libby made a choice to do so. the government
did not put the letter-writers in the middle of
one of the more important high-ranking-govern-
mental-agents’ wrongdoing cases of the last twenty
years. no, they made that choice, on their own. it
must be noted that — given the level of suspicion
about concerted action on the part of the white house,
including the office of the vice president, and his
former chief of staff, the american people and press
possess a very legitimate interest in being sure that
everything — everything — with respect to mr. libby’s
sentencing is handled up in the sunshine, not below-decks.

so — the letter-writers having their
names disclosed may well be a simple
consequence of the peoples’ right of
access — given the high-profile, and
extremely newsworthy nature of the
crimes mr. libby committed, and for
which he was convicted.

so — based on the precedents cited in
kushner, at my site — the most-salient inquiry is:

to what extent will judge walton rely,
in his ultimate judicial/sentencing
decision-making process — on any
or all of the letters? — this, at
least as to letters not from public
officials, will be the key factor in
making the disclosure determination.

as to any letters from public officials:
those, almost certainly, will be disclosed.

that said, timing is very important
here, though. the letters, almost certainly,
won’t be seen until after his
sentencing-order has been entered. . .

so — it is pretty clear that for
every letter upon which judge walton
relies in his sentencing, the public
has a presumptive right of access.

and, for every letter submitted by
any public official — regardless of
whether judge walton relies on the
letter in sentencing — there is a
presumptive right of public access.

now i am just rambling, ‘cuz i am so
worked-up about these clowns trying
to be sure that they are judged by
differing standards that the rest
of us — the unwashed masses. . .
it is as though they feel we should
bow humbly, tugging at our forelocks,
before them. . . not i. nope. not i.

[cross-posted to talk-left, too.]

Micheal Scheuer ( Former CIA head of OBL unit) on the Taliban, Al Queda and the really good “hider” OBL.

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2…..icle1.html

I have met a young man is from Afghanistan and studying communication’s in the states on a Fulbright. He communicates with his family once a week in Afghanistan. Many reports from his family of the Taliban regaining control in the surrounding areas around cities.

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

No. Not a legal eagle, but that directive scares me to death.

Sid58 @ 112

What does KABUKI stand for?

Kabuki is a reference to a Japanese Dance form.

I don’t know for sure, but political Kabuki I think is meant to refer to a highly artificial representation of life with connotations that the visual is superficial, and that the “real” control is dictated “behind the scenes”, but I am not a reliable source on that.

Bob in HI

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

You mean besides its being ridiculously unconstitutional?

And, fwiw, I think that if GWB refuses to go, the torches and pitchforks come out; millions descend on Washington D.C. I’ll be there.

spurious @ 119

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

No. Not a legal eagle, but that directive scares me to death.

Yes, it scares me to death too. I would hope that FDL does a read of this Directive and posts on the implications of it to all of us.

We are all subject of arrest if he enacts it for our dissent of his regime.

jayt @ 121

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

You mean besides its being ridiculously unconstitutional?

And, fwiw, I think that if GWB refuses to go, the torches and pitchforks come out; millions descend on Washington D.C. I’ll be there.

Under the new DOD bill that was also signed he can now use the Military against American citizens. You need to read this Posse Comitatus Act.

This is why I ask about the new Directive.

dakine01 @ 33

xargaw @ 29

I can understand you point. This is two sided issue. However, since Libby is a public figure, this adds another element to the mix. I would be very interested to know and read these letters, in particular, if any members of the press wrote on his behalf; Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Woodward, Russert, etc. And, let’s not forget, Fred Thompson was istrumental in Libby’s defense fund. I wonder what these people think about the rule of law and respecting a verdict?

IOKIYAR.

I can’t imagine why you would make such a comment. I am to the left of Kucinich. I would like to read what, if any, the media wrote in support of Libby. I would like the bums that claim to be non-partisian, but clearly are not, exposed in the light of day!

jayt @ 121

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

You mean besides its being ridiculously unconstitutional?

And, fwiw, I think that if GWB refuses to go, the torches and pitchforks come out; millions descend on Washington D.C. I’ll be there.

God I hope you’re right. I have a nightmarish vision of business as usual, the few who are not mesmerized by the narcotic MSM spirited away, never to be heard from again.

George A. @ 122

spurious @ 119

No. Not a legal eagle, but that directive scares me to death.

Yes, it scares me to death too. I would hope that FDL does a read of this Directive and posts on the implications of it to all of us.

We are all subject of arrest if he enacts it for our dissent of his regime.

What I want to know is why we haven’t heard any reactions to this from Congress? It came out several weeks ago.

Mutant Poodle @ 91

Marie Roget @ 62

Good afternoon from L.A.

An excellent post, JH, for this Memorial Day p.m. About to start backtracking FDL posts & comments from the last couple vacation days (just got back from camping upstate).

The photo of Patrick Fitzgerald giving a speech in the link below is an interesting one. The audio files that go w/it also:

Fitzgerald Amherst Commencement Speech, Q&A

How was it up near Lompoc?

[I am 4 days from Alaska…]

Hi, MP. Took me this long to read the last 2 dys. of posts & get back to here. Jalama/Lompoc was amazingly beautiful & refreshing, thanks for asking :) Take pix in Alaska- I’m sure everyone here would love to see ‘em…

Rayne @ 106

albert fall @ 100

A 6-degrees-of-Scooter-Libby corruption database should be a snap for the blogosphere to assemble once the names come out.

You mean like this?

Oooooh…..

That’s even better than I expected.

I read the memo, and decided to see just what the cases cited actually said. The first case I looked up was U.S. v. Kushner, 349 F.Supp.2d 892 D.N.J.,2005 which is the first case cited by Mr. Jeffress, et al, and cited in the memo a half dozen times or more.

I skipped past the headnotes and got as far as the Court’s Order:

—–
On December 30, 2004, the Court entered an Order granting Media Intervenors’ motion to intervene and allowing access to the sentencing memoranda and certain of the letters.FN3 The Court indicated in said Order that this Opinion would follow.

FN3. The full text of that Order is as follows:

The Court having considered the motion of the Newark Morning Ledger Company and North Jersey Media Group Incorporated (“Media Intervenors”) to (1) intervene in the instant action and (2) obtain access to all sentencing letters and sentencing memoranda submitted to the Court,

IT IS on this 30th day of December, 2004,

ORDERED that

(1) Media Intervenors’ motion to intervene is GRANTED;

(2) the Government’s sentencing memorandum, with appropriate redactions in order to preserve the confidentiality of grand jury matters, ongoing investigations, and otherwise sensitive information, shall be made available;

(3) defendant’s sentencing memorandum shall be made available;

(4) letters excerpted or explicitly referenced in defendant’s sentencing memorandum shall be made available;

(5) letters submitted by current and former public officials shall be made available;

(6) letters other than those excerpted or explicitly referenced in defendant’s sentencing memorandum and those submitted by current and former public officials, whether submitted directly to the Court or by counsel, shall not be made available, subject to the Court’s explicit reliance on individual letters during the sentencing proceedings, which letters shall be made available at that time; and

(7) letters other than those excerpted or explicitly referenced in defendant’s sentencing memorandum and those submitted by current and former public officials, whether submitted directly to the Court or by counsel, to which the Court makes reference during the sentencing proceedings, but only with respect to the sheer quantity of said letters rather than individual content, shall not be disclosed.

The Court will file an Opinion elaborating upon this Order.

(Linares, J., Order of 12/30/04.)

I won’t bother to restate Judge Linares’s clear order, but it seems to be a nuanced way of dealing with the problem. Current and Past Public Officials wouldn’t give everything that the media may wish, but I’m sure it gives a lot.

I didn’t bother to continue and read the Court’s opinion subsequently issued, and I cannot say whether Kushner really stands for the propositions for which it is cited, but these guys really have guts to cite Kushner at all without mentioning what Judge Linares actually did when confronting a similar problem.

Now Kushner is merely the opinion of another District Judge from another District Court, and certainly not binding precedent but treating it that way is at least questionable. Needless to say, I didn’t bother to pull any other cited cases.

jayt @ 121

George A. @ 103

For all the legal eagles here at FDL….

Have any of you read the new presidential order signed on May 7th or 9th yet? If so what are the implications for America as a country? If not here it is National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

Than please let me know if anyone really thinks that Bush will ever step down.

You mean besides its being ridiculously unconstitutional?

And, fwiw, I think that if GWB refuses to go, the torches and pitchforks come out; millions descend on Washington D.C. I’ll be there.

Just pass the word that this interferes with one’s right to bear arms. Because, you know, it probably would, when push comes to shove.

Margot @ 130

jayt @ 121

George A. @ 103

You mean besides its being ridiculously unconstitutional?

And, fwiw, I think that if GWB refuses to go, the torches and pitchforks come out; millions descend on Washington D.C. I’ll be there.

Just pass the word that this interferes with one’s right to bear arms. Because, you know, it probably would, when push comes to shove.

Here’s a link Allen L Roland that gives some info on this Directive.

Also read Posse Comitatus Act and see the changes in it.

And one should also re-read Military Commissions Act of 2006.

That’s why this new Directive scares the crap out of me. And is should scare everyone else too. This is a dangerous Executive Order by Bush and should be challenged by our representatives. If not than we are in real danger of losing our freedoms.

Barry says:

May 28th, 2007 at 6:24 pm

. . .I didn’t bother to continue and read the Court’s opinion subsequently issued, and I cannot say whether Kushner really stands for the propositions for which it is cited, but these guys really have guts to cite Kushner at all without mentioning what Judge Linares actually did when confronting a similar problem.

Now Kushner is merely the opinion of another District Judge from another District Court, and certainly not binding precedent but treating it that way is at least questionable. Needless to say, I didn’t bother to pull any other cited cases. . .

barry — i did — on both counts. . . and while
i agree that team libby has chutzpah — they
likely doomed their effort to avoid almost
all of the letters becoming public, at least
in part, as to each. . .

stoneman is a pretty good precedent, as
are several of the others — it will all out;
after sentencing.

and.i.can’t.wait.

good to see your confirmation, though.

The first issue is whether the letters are judical documents traditionally withheld or public records accessible to the public.

The second issue, assuming they are public records, is whether there release would impair the administration of justice.

The key here is that not all sentencing letters play a large role in the adjudication process. Therefore, not all sentencing letters become public records accessible to the public. Therefore, not all sentencing letters are accessible to the public. Furthermore, not all sentencing letters are benefical to the public discourse or add confidence in the adminstration of justice. Sentencing letters can be public records that are accessible to the public under rare circumstances.

So if sentencing letters are released only under extraordinary circumstances, it’s hard to imagine they would produce a chilling effect severe enough to prejudice all future criminal defendents.

The third issue is whether there release is benefical to the addition of the public discourse and confidence in the administration of justice.

Team Libbys says a big no to both. But then argues because of the extraordinary media attention, the authors would become subject to public scrutiny “they did not and should not have known” they would recieve if the letters were released. However, the silver bullet is the authors have not expressed such to the court or in the letters themselves. Team Libby implies this from the personal nature of the letters. Team Libby argues the personal nature would subject the authors to public scrutiny – but that seems like a pretext considering Libby acted as a firewall.

As long as the authors remain silent, its hard to argue that they object to a release due to their fear unwanted public scrutiny based on an implied confidence that could be pierce under the circumstances. Also, if they fear public scrutiny over the letters, it’s hard to argue the letters are not benefical to the public discourse. Plus, the authors are former and current public officals.

Jeralyn: “While Judge Walton may not be able to change the laws surrounding disclosure of legal defense funds…”

Judge Walton can’t change it, but IMHO the law should be changed for nonprofits in general. There are too many ‘charities’ that are too close to being political entities, and it’s time for everyone to see who’s giving what to whom.

Maybe below a certain line – $1000/year, maybe – contributions could remain anonymous, but above that, it shouldn’t matter if a nonprofit is a church or a political campaign: their donors and the amounts they give ought to be public.

I wrote to the judge, too, and had every expectation that the letter would be public info. In fact, I posted my letter on a FDL thread.

My reaction to Libby’s concerns is one of wild speculation. Just suppose that some number around 200 people wrote warm, personal letters of concern for a poor beleagured and unfairly prosecuted guy whose only crime was forgetting something or being confused while terrorists were at the gate. And, some 10,000 letters arrived (recall the scene in “Miracle on 34th Street” where postal workers lug bags and bags of letters to the judge and nearly bury him)carrying the message that people across the country are outraged that a confidente to POTUS and VPOTUS, a learned counsel, lied to a grand jury and the FBI in the matter of “outing” a CIA operative in a time of war!!

If you were Libby or Libby’s controllers, would you like them apples in the newspapers across America?!

OK, maybe it’s a crazy thought. OTOH give yourself your best shot at just how many letters were received and which way they might tilt. ;)

roboknow @ 133

The first issue is whether the letters are judical documents traditionally withheld or public records accessible to the public.

The second issue, assuming they are public records, is whether there release would impair the administration of justice.

The key here is that not all sentencing letters play a large role in the adjudication process. Therefore, not all sentencing letters become public records accessible to the public. Therefore, not all sentencing letters are accessible to the public. Furthermore, not all sentencing letters are benefical to the public discourse or add confidence in the adminstration of justice. Sentencing letters can be public records that are accessible to the public under rare circumstances.

So if sentencing letters are released only under extraordinary circumstances, it’s hard to imagine they would produce a chilling effect severe enough to prejudice all future criminal defendents.

The third issue is whether there release is benefical to the addition of the public discourse and confidence in the administration of justice.

Team Libbys says a big no to both. But then argues because of the extraordinary media attention, the authors would become subject to public scrutiny “they did not and should not have known” they would recieve if the letters were released. However, the silver bullet is the authors have not expressed such to the court or in the letters themselves. Team Libby implies this from the personal nature of the letters. Team Libby argues the personal nature would subject the authors to public scrutiny – but that seems like a pretext considering Libby acted as a firewall.

As long as the authors remain silent, its hard to argue that they object to a release due to their fear unwanted public scrutiny based on an implied confidence that could be pierce under the circumstances. Also, if they fear public scrutiny over the letters, it’s hard to argue the letters are not benefical to the public discourse. Plus, the authors are former and current public officals.

What you seem to be saying is that “sentencing letters” should only be seen “in camera” by the Judge. I do not understand if you also mean that the probation officer and prosecution has a right to see sentencing letters submitted by the defense and vice versa.

I would not think that there should be any expectation of privacy accorded to the writer of a “sentencing letter” and any submission to the Court by anyone should be a matter of public record, even if filed under the defacto seal which seems to be accorded to sentencing letters. Certainly, Libby, a convicted felon and proven piece of shit does not deserve any privacy rights in the context of the sentencing letters. What concerns me is any sentencing letter which tries to influence the Court on the basis of Libby’s so called record of public service which is just part of Libby’s contiuning self serving and and self-promotion which has marked his career. Any such sentencing letters should be disclosed so they can be scrutinized.