NOTE: I will be on Air America this afternoon at 5:15 pm-ish ET with Sam Seder, who is subbing today for Randi Rhodes. You can listen live here.
For federal prosecutors, this is the nightmare that everyone was hoping wouldn't come to pass. Via NYTimes:
...In April 2006, four months after the N.S.A. program was publicly disclosed, an appellate court directed the trial judge in Mr. Timimi’s case to reconsider it in light of his lawyers’ accusations.
But the issue has been bogged down in court for 18 months, with intelligence officials making a series of classified appearances before the judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, to explain the government’s position. Lawyers for Mr. Timimi and even the trial prosecutors have not been allowed to hear the closed-door discussions.
Jonathan Turley, the lead appellate lawyer for Mr. Timimi, said the defense’s lack of access to crucial evidence had made it hard to litigate the case. “We’re shadowboxing in the courtroom with unnamed officials at unnamed agencies,” Mr. Turley said in a telephone interview.
On Tuesday, at an open hearing in her courtroom in Alexandria, Va., Judge Brinkema appeared to be out of patience as well, lawyers there said. The judge, who also handled the terrorism trial that resulted in a life sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui, expressed frustration over the recent disclosure that the government had misled her at the Moussaoui trial by denying the existence of any tape recording of high-value Qaeda detainees. In a Nov. 9 filing with the court, the government acknowledged that three such tapes did exist but said the prosecutors at the Moussaoui trial had not known of them.
Judge Brinkema told federal prosecutors at the Timimi hearing that she wanted the government to find a way to give trial prosecutors, defense lawyers and her own clerk the clearance to review classified material in the case. That could require the direct intervention of the White House, since Mr. Bush has personally handled decisions on issuing clearances for the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.... (emphasis mine)
Note that the AUSAs trying to prosecute the case have been kept in the dark by the national security team, making for a very difficult decision-making process on every national security-related case. The problem for AUSAs is that bad conduct by some other aspect of the government is, nonetheless, applied to them, whether or not they knew about the misconduct or withholding of evidence or information. The NSA program was very closely held, which means that the bulk of the USAs bringing national security cases nationwide would have gotten hit with this issue when we all found out about it in 2005.
As a prosecutor, if some bad act on the part of investigators or other governmental agencies springs out on you in the middle of a case, you are not happy. Especially if the case happens to be against someone you consider to be a very bad actor who deserves conviction and incarceration for the safety of the community as a whole. To be sandbagged by your own side acting improperly behind your back is infuriating, let alone opening up the community to increased risk with an overturned conviction of someone who is truly dangerous. And this type of deception goes entirely against the grain of the pursuit of justice.
The laws apply to everyone, including the President. Who could have anticipated that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument would be raised by defense counsel in these cases as a direct result of the Bush Administration's failure to follow the laws as written? Oh, wait...
(Photo of the fruit of an Australian stinging tree via emblatame.)
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Impeach
Zed?
dos?
no, tres…
Awww… almost got my first zed. Oh well.
They are discussing the fruit of the poisonous tree in the FISA mark-up, right now on CSPAN.
Noted this for everyone: I’ll be on Air America at 5:15-ish pm ET today with Sam Seder (who is subbing for Randi Rhodes today). You can listen live here.
Clicked the link..a trip down memory lane…FDL Blogger days!!
OT Thanksgiving 2001 the average price of gasoline was $1.16 a gallon. For Thanksgiving 2007 and after a mere 6 years in office, Bush has been able to cut that price down to $3.09.
And there are some who say Republicans don’t understand economics. *shakes head sadly at how anyone could think so*
I couldn’t remember if I first heard about the fruit of a poison tree from Redd Hedd or LHP till Christy so nicely put the link in at the bottom.
This old dog has learned quite a few new tricks hanging out here.
I love the part where the judge wants security clearances for everyone involved.
Somebody else finally had enough of the shenanigans Bush is pulling.
Hugh @ 9
And headed for what $6.00?
This fits better with the last thread, but Hillary Clinton is refusing to cross the picket line for the CBS debate.
Now to read this article!
“…Mr. Bush has personally handled decisions on issuing clearances for the N.S.A. eavesdropping program…”
Junya: Let me see here. Deadeye, have you read or heard anything good on this here Judge?
Deadeye: As of last night’s Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone wiretaps…oops…I mean “Foreign Intelligence” gathered foreignly, we got a falafel-eating, latte-drinking, volvo-driving pinko liberal. Clearance disapproved!
Junya: Gotcha. C-l-e-a-…ah’m, how do ya spell that?
OT..has this been posted?
Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, announced today that she will forgo CBS News’ upcoming presidential debate unless the network can reach a resolution with its employees, who have authorized a strike.
“The workers at CBS News have been without a contract for close to two and a half years,” the Senator said. “It is my hope that both sides will reach an agreement that results in a secure contract for the workers at CBS News but let me be clear: I will honor the picket line if the workers at CBS News decide to strike.”
In issuing the statement Clinton becomes the first Democratic candidate to publicly state her refusal to cross the picket line. Others in the primary race have expressed solidarity with the CBS writers.
HuffPo
Christy Hardin Smith @ 7
Please tell AA to implement mp3 (podcasts)!
Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of EDEN, till one greater Man ( or Woman )
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Busted at 10 — Am happy to help further your arcane legal bits and pieces knowledge. *g* This is one of those areas that people who practice in criminal law deal with in terms of argument in pretrial motions and hearings all the time.
But attorneys who have not actively practiced criminal law might miss it entirely. And I suspect that a number of the folks who were crafting the policies a la Addington and Yoo fall into that non-active-application understanding category. Constitutional arguments are one thing — practical day in, day out grind of actually doing the work can be an eye-opener on a whole different level.
I am not a fan of Brinkema. I think she basically allowed the Moussaoui trial to turn into a circus. It was a difficult case but that made it more important for her to exert control over the proceedings, and she didn’t.
IANAL but in the Timimi case she needs to set out minimum guidelines for the government. If they can’t meet them, then she needs to throw the case out and let the government refile if it wants to. Instead she is only kind of sort of threatening to do this without clear guidance as to what would trigger such a decision.
Hugh at 18 — I like a judge who keeps a tighter rein on the courtroom as well. Walton did a great job, I thought, with Libby’s trial given the enormous media circus and the constant graymail tap dancing with which he was contending.
I remember that piece on “Fruit of the Poison Tree”, I was new to the Lake and was amazed how much insight there was here about the law, compared to the superficial reporting in the “other media”. Was it really almost 2 years ago?
Thanks Christy and break a leg tonight!
Christy Hardin Smith, you ROCK!
“The laws apply to everyone, including the President.”
This President doesn’t think so, except insofar as HE decides how a “law” applies to him.
Hugh @ 9
Here’s another example of Substantial Loss Of Trust:
Stand by for “generalised systemic financial meltdown”
We should re-intermediate the Securitized Executive Branch while we’re at it…
BobbyG at 21 — And, as with everything in his damn life, someone else has to now come along behind and pick up the pieces from the mess. Lovely way to live, isn’t it?
Re: the legal profession and lawyers in general:
I’ve always wondered how lawyers can absorb that much material and keep track of cases and case histories. Too much (encyclopedic) material to keep in the foreground and also in the background. Is there some kind of secret to it all? (I’m not kidding. This is a question I’ve always wanted to ask but haven’t till now.)
Who could have anticipated that the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument would be raised by defense counsel in these cases as a direct result of the Bush Administration’s failure to follow the laws as written? Oh, wait…
darn. As I was reading the post, I already knew that that was going to be my comment. Beat to the punch!!
Oh well, great minds……..
More economic news..I am not sure what it means but I don’t think it is a positive sign..
European banks agreed to suspend trading in the $2.8 trillion market for mortgage debt known as covered bonds to halt a slump that has closed the region’s main source of financing for home lenders.
…
“We are in a deteriorating situation,” Patrick Amat, chairman of the Brussels-based [European Covered Bond Council], said in a telephone interview. “A single sale can be like a hot potato. If repeated, this can lead to an unacceptable spread widening and you end up with an absurd situation.”
link
Christy Hardin Smith @ 23
You and Jane and the rest of your FDL contributors are true patriots. I fire up FDL first thing every day. I always learn something of value.
Does any AUSA have the gonads to say NO proper evidence, NO case, NO prosecution? Guess not.
Wait- Our president PERSONALLY reviews these cases? Wow—well now we can be SURE that all the details are looked at and that the downside risks are thoroughly analyzes and contingency plans are put into place-
Bushie at 28 — Yes, they do so all the time. Who says they don’t? I know I used to do so with insufficient cases…as did every prosecutor I knew.
Chimpy personally reviews jack sh*t. I’m not even sure he really knows how to read, in the original sense of this term.
who would have imagined J Edgar’s boys affirming and swearing to evidence they knew was malarky? Or the same FBI boys today that appear to have a problem with the same thing?
Because of the government, we will have anarchy. They are working toward that as it will allow martial law to be a touch more palatable, “to protect the community from terra”
why will congress not act? why will they not issue contempt of congress citations and demand the exu come on down and testify to what the members of congress (and the dimwitted public) have all ready been made aware of? It does include so many people and so many crimes.
Funny how no one is doing their job in DC at all? or are they doing the other job now?
rw at 29 — Yep, that really shored up my faith in things being done properly too. *snerk*
Biodun @ 31
Great comment posted over at Salon.com:
How did we ever let this happen? Peter Principle on Quaaludes.
I wish Jonathan Turley (or Christy or LHP) had a nightly spot on Olbermann.
Yeah- He’s reviewin some jackshit right now!
I read recently that in order to get Clusterfuck to sit still and pay attention, his handlers have to say “This is a REALLY BIG decision Mr. President”–Kinda like spoon feeding a baby.
christy: if you knew you were being kept in the dark about some aspect of the case - would you agree to prosecute blind? how you even begin to determine that the defendant is a “bad actor” let alone guilty?
Christy, Hugh, your criticism of Brinkema is fair although iirc she did try initially to put some integrity into the Moussaoui trial but got slapped down very hard on appeal. You may know more from other cases but it seemed to me that someone delivered her a message during that trial and she just gave in after that.
BobbyG
The Peter Principle states that each man rises to his level of incompetance.
I would suggest that George W Bush passed that level sometime before becoming Governor of Texas.
That the president can’t speak is a minor problem compared to the fact that he can’t THINK!
Clusterfuck Peter Principled out during second grade safety patrol when he was promoted from “trainee”.
mack @ 39
Yea he couldn’t even competently go awol!
Loo Hoo. @ 35
Turley is already on there, although not nightly. Now Christy definitely needs to be on one of these shows on a regular basis, that’s for sure.
selise at 37 — How do you know you are being kept in the dark about an aspect of the case when you don’t even know that aspect exists? Remember, we are talking about a prosecution that was begun, tried and concluded before anyone publicly knew about the NSA program.
You can’t make prosecutorial decisions based on some fictional hypothetical of a worst case scenario of what the rest of the government may be doing behind your back. Luckily, you generally don’t have to do so because most people have ethics that prevent them from being lying cheaters. Not so much here, though…and yet the prosecutors are the ones who are going to have to clean up after this.
rwcole @ 29
It is hard work too.
nomolos @ 45
…and we’re makin’ progress.
Ms. Phillips who ran the second grade safety patrol said:
“We had several near death accidents with George patroling—the thought that he would actually have been put in CHARGE of the safety patrol is impossible to imagine. His daddy kept us from firing him- so we used him as human sign.
The sad thing is that the vast majority of “detainees” will *never* get a trial, fair or not.
The government knows that its methods of extracting evidence were and are illegal, and that the evidence thus gleaned is inadmissible. To even attempt to bring such a defendant to trial is little more than a dead certain way to face embarrassment.
And there isn’t a defense lawyer in the country who wouldn’t challenge evidence sought to be introduced on precisely those grounds.
I would be tempted to think that they were never meant to be tried, but Occam’s Razor suggests the more simple answer of sheer, massive incompetence.
rwcole @ 40
tee hee
rwcole strikes the funny bone!
As for the bad actor part, usually there is a LOT of evidence, especially in federal cases where you have the capability to gather a lot of it with the number of agents they can put on the ground on a case. I’ve defended drug cases for defendants way down the chain in terms of being relatively small time dealers — and gotten box upon box upon box of tapes of wired buys, surveillance photos, documentation, phone records, you name it.
That’s leaving aside murders and the resulting dead body and other forensic evidence, co-conspirator confessions, physical evidence from rape kits…the list goes on and on. In my experience, there are a lot of really shitty people who do incredibly bad things to other people. And they need to be dealt with swiftly for the sake of public safety in a lot of cases.
That’s not to say that bad actions on the part of the government don’t happen — clearly they do — but the worst is when you have someone who is a complete skeezeball bent on harming others — and who ends up getting released on a technicality because some other idiot — who is supposed to be working on the side of justice and the rule of law — oversteps and screws up the case, allowing said bad person to walk free. That seriously sucks.
Clusterfuck’s runnin the war on terror
But he can’t FIND the people he’s at war with-
And SHOULD he find one- he can’t prosecute em
And SHOULD he prosecute em- he can’t convict em
And SHOULD he convict em- their convictions are set aside cause of the way the prez fucked up the preceding steps…
We’re lucky to have him in the White House fightin the war on terror—With his MOUTH!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 44
but in this case, haven’t the prosecutors known that they were being kept in the dark - at least for the last year and a half?
selise at 53 — Read the whole article at the NYTimes. The intel agencies have refused to share information with the prosecutors about what may or may not have happened with this case. Thus, they had no information to share with the court. They have been litigating this particular issue for 18 months already — and have gotten no further than this, and neither defense counsel nor the prosecutors are any closer to knowing what may or may not have been done.
jayt @ 48
and if they can’t be brought to trial, then the gov. will argue that they must be allowed to hold them without charges and for as long as they like - in order to protect the public.
which will give them the power to detail w/o charge more people - which will result in more people who can’t get fair trials… imo a self reinforcing cycle of incompetence and maliciousness.
GW Clusterfuck- in one of his many process improvements to government- has reprinted the official “Request for Information” form so that the top third of the page shows a picture of a three inch finger—with the subscript “Fuck You”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 51
i’m not denying your good judgement, christy. but it’s not the role of the prosecutor to have the last word on who is a bad actor and who is guilty and who deserves to be locked up. that role, imo, rightly belongs to the people - through the actions of the jury… and only after the defendant has been able to challenge the evidence against them.
Plus, we don’t really get to know what the AUSAs on the case think…because they have to get permission from the DOJ to speak to the press on something like this. And, what are the odds they are going to get the green light to talk about being screwed over by the incompetence of the Bush Administration?
Well, to be fair…the Peter Principle ignores physics. Bush far exceeded the level of his actual incompetence due to laws of momentum. He shot so fast up to his natural level that the momentum actually carried him well beyond the correct level. Happily, he cannot seek another term to allow the necessary time for him to sink back down to the appropriate level. It would take at least another full term for the oscillations to dampen to a stable crappy level of incompetence.
Freddie Thompson tied for the lead in South Carolina with Romney
Is South Carolina REALLY a state?
And I can say that as a juror I would refuse to rule “guilty” on any case that involved illegal detention, torture, abuse, etc. I don’t care what “information” was brought forward. I would refuse to trust any of it and see fit to let the poor bastard go.
selise — It is the role of the proscutor to initially make that determination. The role is a dual one — you are quasi-judicial in that you determine who is and is not charged initially. The jury makes the ultimate decision on guilt or innocence in the cases that go to trial, but the vast majority of cases end in plea agreements. Those are very often cases where the evidence is overwhelming of guilt and the odds at trial are very slim, if even existent.
Prosecutors have a very heavy burden to carry because if they make a mistake in charging it can ruin an innocent person’s life. And most are very, very careful with it as a result. The ones who aren’t end up being publicly castigated in large measure because they break public trust — usually for political expediency or payback or some other unsavory reason.
But you are trained when you start the job about the special ethical obligations. And you take an oath to uphold the constitution and the rule of law — and almost everyone who I have ever known who has done the job took that oath very, very seriously.
rwcole @ 47
FWIW, I imagine most places were like my hometown where safety patrol “duties” were not allowed until fifth or sixth grade.
Not that Little Boots would have gotten any more mature and able to handle them in the 3 or 4 years time.
Has anyone seen TPM lately? It seems the publisher is now claiming they punk’d everyone in regards Scotty dumping on the Decider.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c....._of_mc.php
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54
i have read the article. am i misunderstanding?
haven’t the prosecutors known for at least 18 months that there was something going on that they were not privy to? something that the defense claimed was important to their case?
it just seems weird to me that the prosecutors would continue to work on the case knowing that they were blind about something (even though they did not know what that something was).
CHS @ 54:
Gives a concrete meaning to the word “benighted.” In the dark in all respects.
What would be the effect of disallowing classified information from criminal court cases?
Trying to get security clearances for judges and lawyers is so messy, not to mention the fact that the defendant is supposed to be able to confront and question his accusers. Secret evidence also leaves open the possibility that the methods for gathering the evidence aren’t on the level.
So why not just tell the government, “If you can’t make your case in the open in public, you don’t have a case. Tough.”
mack @ 39
The Dilbert Principle has it that for the truly incompetent, once the Peter Principle has been reached, they most be promoted beyond the level of incompetence into management.
I give you George W. Bush, exemplar of the Dilbert Principle.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54
Although I doubt this would happen under this Administration, I wonder why the government can’t be asked (in the context of the warrantless wiretapping program coming to light) to stipulate that in this one particular case it did not surveil outside of FISA or a duly served court order. If it can’t stipulate or refuses to stipulate, then toss the case and move for a new trial.
selise at 65 — Yes, you are misunderstanding then. The person was already convicted. These are post-trial motions to gain a new trial and/or have the verdict vacated or some other remedy applied post-conviction.
The prosecutors continue because it is their job to argue on behalf of the government. Which, of course, they cannot really do because they are being cut out of the process by other government lawyers for some other aspect. But they are required to be there because they have to ascertain what happened in order to make judgments on what they should or should not be arguing on behalf of not just the government’s position — but also in the interests of justice.
But they can’t do that because they are being cut out of the process by….well, you see where this is going. And has been going for 18 months.
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 64
I read this. You’ve got to be kidding. Just when I thought I’ve seen it all. This whole country is a train wreck…
Joe Klein — You’ll note that the carefully worded walk back has nothing in it about Cheney, Libby, Rove or Card…who were also mentioned in the Scotty release. Sorry, not buying the kiss ass attempt at CYA. And I’m not paying money for his book either, little smarm merchant.
encephalopath — They do it all the time under CIPA, though. Most federal prosecutors and judges already have fairly high level clearance if they work on national security cases, anyway. And defense counsel who work these types of cases are generally vetted through under CIPA processes as well.
Worked just fine at a very high level of clearance for the Libby trial…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 70
that is my understanding - the part i don’t get is why the prosecutors would continue to argue on behalf of the gov. when they know there is something they aren’t being told (and for at least 18 months). how can the prosecutors be responsible for their initial determination of guilt if they now know they are being kept in the dark?
i’d feel a lot better if they would refuse to continue with the case under those circumstances (from the point they understood they weren’t being told everything).
Redd
Yeah- anyone who buys Scotty’s book is a sucker! They’ll buy it hoping to find the truth about Clusterfuck- and end up gaggin up their breakfast as the read Scotty turnin the guy into a national treasure….
DON’T BUY THIS BOOK- it may be hazardous to your health!
CHS @62
You are talking about pre 9/11 right?
selise — They have a responsibility to the case to ascertain the truth. Which they can’t do if they just up and walk off the job. Quitting in protest isn’t an option, because they would just be throwing the case into someone else’s lap — someone who had not been following all the facts and the trial ins and outs and would, thus, be in a worse position to make the judgments that will need to be made.
You do not walk away from a case that is your responsibility. It would be irresponsible and the judge would hand you your ass if you did so.
Quoting myself: “What would be the effect of disallowing classified information from criminal court cases?”
I realize why the government would want to keep certain information secret. They want to protect methods of investigation and people invovled in investigations. Making those things know would spoil the methods and people invovled making them useless or putting people at risk.
But what I’m wondering is why we have decided that protecting government investigative methods and assets are more important than protecting the right of the defendant to see all the evidence and confront his accusers?
nomolos — No, I’m talking about always. I was a prosecutor after 9.11 as well, and did my job the same way and still took my oath seriously. As do a whole helluva lot of people who work as prosecutors everywhere.
Do not confuse political hacks with the Bush crowd with real prosecutors. Real prosecutors take the job seriously. Political hacks are a horse of an entirely different turdblossom.
“News Analysis
Method Equalizes Stem Cell Debate
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
An alternative method of developing embryonic stem cells will allow people on both sides to say they have fruitful research to pursue.”
NYT
Haven’t read this thing yet- but notice the headline—see- the sides are EQUAL in the stem cell debate
What tha fuck?
Sherly reporting from the Church of the Misplaced Brain in Columbia, South Carolina?
Praedor A @ 59
I suspect when the oscillations damp out, the stable level of incompetence will be somewhere below current sea level.
(I thought he passed his level of incompetence in kindergarten.)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 77
well, as someone who’s more likely to end up at the defense table than the prosecutor’s table… i’d rather have prosecutors refuse to argue my guilt unless they believe they have access to all the relevant info.
i did not realize that it was considered ok for prosecutors to do that.
very sad.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 79
Ooops, sorry CHS it was meant as a joke… no *g* sorry.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 72
This reminds me of the old logic puzzle:
All Cretans are liars. So a Cretan comes up and tells you he’s lying. Is he?
Updated it reads like this: Bush is a liar. McClellan is a liar. They lie about everything, including their lies.
If you do this Scottie, we’ll out you.
Scottie was just tryin ta sell his piece a shit book. He’d already said on teevee that Clusterfuck told him to say that Rove n Libby did nothin wrong- so it was no big deal to let the quote fly——trouble is—–he re-kindled a fire that had gone out- now we got senators threatenin investigations an all sortsa shit….
Thanks Scottie!!
selise at 82 — Did you miss the part where he’s already been found guilty and that the prosecutors are trying to get a handle on all the facts so that they can know how to proceed properly? Who said anything about arguing guilt at this point — they can’t argue anything without knowing the facts — and they are trying to get at the facts?
Jeebus, both defense counsel and the AUSAs are ostensibly on the same side of trying to find out the truth of things here. And yet you feel free to denegrate the prosecutors because they work for the government…when the problem created was not of their making but came from the Bush Administration?
That is wholly unfair and not what I would have expected at all. They cannot proceed without knowing the facts and, in this case, it may be that this particular defendant was not wiretapped illegaly and that the Bush Adminsitration is drawing a bright line to prevent discovery in cases where other defendants WERE wiretapped illegally. Would you have the prosecutors throw away a legitimate case against someone they deemed to be a bad actor based on evidence they don’t yet know for certain from people they don’t quite trust before they even get to see it, then?
Facts and evidence are important. As is truth. And they don’t know any of that because the Bush Administration is preventing both prosecutors and defense counsel from seeing it. Should they let a dangerous person go free based on a lot of suppositions and what ifs? No. Shoudl they dig at the facts? Absolutely. And if the facts show that the law was broken? Then they may have to argue that he goes free — and it will hurt like hell if he is, indeed, a dangerous person. Because when that happens, you know in your gut that others may be hurt or killed or what have you because of an error that someone else made — and that the public will have to face the consequences of that error.
This isn’t beanbag on either side. This is, in large measure far too often, life and death.
I have no sympathy for McClellan.
He had his chance.
rwcole @ 80
Stolberg is one of those reporters who epitomize journalism in the Bush era. She can only speak in White House talking points so anything she says already tacitly accepts most of what the White House is selling.
Hugh
Yeah kinda looks like it when you read the article—but the worst contributor in this case appears to have been the headline writer..
Thanksgiving card for everyone!
Go to Rubber Chicken Cards
and click on the top one, the Flashback Boys. Happy Turkey Day!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 79
Not trying to be contentious, but IIRC, of the people freed from death row by the Innocence Project, in 78% of the cases, misconduct by the prosecution was found to have occurred.
Just read that South Carolina leads the United States of America in number of churches and in number of stupid people. What do they EAT down there?
rwcole @ 60
Huckabee is now tied with Romney in Iowa: Link
From TPM: “Sorry, suckers. It looks like McClellan will actually exonerate Bush for his role in Plamegate. But yesterday McClellan and his publisher posted a carefully selected excerpt designed to persuade everyone that he was going to implicate the President in it. Note the weaselly way the original statement says that Bush was “involved” in McClellan’s misleading of the public.
It’s very hard not to conclude that McClellan and his publisher deliberately played the media for chumps with the too-cute-by-half excerpt they posted yesterday. And it worked.
Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted. “
This after John Dean vouched for the character of the publisher last night on KO.
Still, the idea that GWB merely passed along what he was told by Cheney and Rove was always a possible interpretation of the quote released yesterday - so I don’t see this as being quite so earth-shattering as might some.
Left unrenounced is the notion that Cheney lied to Bush, that Bush now most certainly knows that Cheney lied to him, and that Cheney still has a swell office inside the WH.
It might not be quite as ugly as lying himself, but GWB is *still* left looking like an incompetent lap-dog who did, does, and will tolerate lies and corruption at the very highest levels of his administration.
rwcole @ 75
I think its good to remember that The book title was something like “What Happened”. This should be the tip-off that what the book will do is spin control masquerading as naked fact. A less Orwellian title would probably be, “What I would like people to believe happened”, which will of course be primarily a self-serving treatise. However, any attempt to one-up Bush or Cheney would probably result in a visit from Addington with his waterboarding team.
Bob in HI
Steve-AR at 92 — How many cases do you think are prosecuted on a day to day basis in this country? Death penalty cases — while enormously important in terms of impact individually — are a tiny fraction of those. And a lot of them come from Texas and Illinois, where there is a long history of problems with police/prosecutorial misconduct and/or inadequte defense counsel.
A LOT of them.
Hi, y’all.rwcole @ 40
Hi, y’all. My parents, who regularly corrected my grammar as long as I can remember, liked to say that being unable to put together a clear sentence or choose the right words was a clear signal to the listener that you were also unable to think clearly. They assured me that listeners would judge such a speaker as not very bright.
Not sure what happened in the meantime. Probably that “who-would-you-wanna-have-a-beer-with” meme - he doesn’t know grammar and neither do I, so he must be a regular guy.
Sigh.
And how was this quantified?
Steve-AR @ 92
Misconduct by the prosecution can include the cops lying and trying to set things up for their preferred suspect. And there are far more prosecutors out there that are trying to do things correctly than there are corrupt prosecutors.
Kind of like there are far more teachers trying to work within the system and do the correct thing than there are teachers trying to molest the students in their charge.
While I am sitting here twiddling my thumbs, I figure this would be a good time to wish all the pups a very Happy Thanksgiving.
Stake out your spot for The Nap now!
Biodun
By askin how many of em would vote for Freddie Thompson.
rwcole @ 86
For the first time in public, here is the expanded excerpt from the McClellan book:
Christy Hardin Smith @ 87 -
i thought the prosecutors have been arguing the gov.’s case for the last 18 months? (during this period where the judge is supposed to be reconsidering - i get that there was already a guilty verdict)
if that is incorrect, then my conclusions are completely incorrect as well.
Oh, and Steve — the Innocence Project takes those cases where there are problems with the case. It doesn’t quantify on that percentage on the overall cases where there were not problems, so statistically you are already looking at a self-selected sampling where problems are more likely to have occurred in the process — not in cases of all types nationwide.
It’s an easy target to blame the prosecutors — but the truth of it is far more complicated, and pulls in a whole lot of problems from crappy defense counsel to defendants who are less than honest with counsel from the get go to bad police work to all sorts of other things. And you don’t hear about the cases that they get right because, frankly, people don’t complain about them or appeal them very often.
jayt @ 48
I’d normally go w/ your Occam’s Razor argument, but in this case, I’m cynical enough to think your first theory is true. Remembering how hard they fought against any kind of hearing, arguing just for indefinite detention “as long as the [infinite] war lasts,” suggests to me that they had no intention of trying the detainees in any way.
“As a caution against over-enthusiasm about the surge, it’s useful to consider what happens in a “draw play” in football. Defensive linemen go charging toward the quarterback, congratulating themselves on evading the blockers, when suddenly the opposing running back races past, and they realize, “Oops! We’ve been suckered.” A Syrian analyst draws a similar picture of what’s happening now in Iraq. He notes that former insurgents are regrouping and forming alliances among Sunni and Shiite militias that oppose the United States. “This will be known as the era of deception,” warns my Syrian friend.
Al-Qaeda’s mistakes and Iran’s tactical retreat don’t diminish the importance of what Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. forces are accomplishing. But the hard work of building a stable Iraqi state is still ahead. The Bush administration needs to seize this moment and speed the transition to Iraqi control. If our troop levels in Iraq are “conditions-based,” and conditions really are improving, then a whole lot more soldiers should be home next Thanksgiving. “
Ignatious
Bustednuckles @ 101
You are a breath of fresh air.
Oh, yeah. Thanksgiving.
I’m going camping first thing in the morning.
The cherry and pumpkin pies are almost done and I’ve got three loaves of bread risen and ready to go in.
Potatoes are boiling. Stuffing is ready.
Politics and crabbing will have to wait for me to get back to the grind. In three days.
I’m thankful for having family and friends at home and friends at the lake.
Happy Happy.
Camping? How the hell ya gonna watch football?
selise — the arguing has mainly been about trying to get the national security types to allow people to see the information so they can figure out which way to go forward or not. Guilt had already been determined — these are post-trial motions for a new trial which, of course, the AUSAs have to argue against based on the evidence presented at trial and the jury’s rendered verdict unless or until they get their hands on the new evidence because, under the prior evidence, the jury found him guilty. And unless and until they have new evidence, the jury verdict is an important componant of all of this.
But they’ve also been arguing to get their hands on the information — for 18 months — to determine if there needs to be some change in status. I’m not sure why you find that to be a problem, frankly, because they can’t just throw out the jury verdict without there being cause to do so. And to get to cause, they have to get the information that the Bush Administration has been withholding for 18 months. Which they have been trying to get along with defense counsel for 18 months to even see if it does apply to their case or not. because if it doesn’t apply, then there is no cause to overturn the jury verdict on those grounds.
And with that, I am done because I have to get started on stuffing for tomorrow…
christy - i wasn’t trying to put all the blame on the prosecutors… of course the bush administration has completely mucked up the system. and i would so not want to be in the position of the prosecutors - a situation they (as far as i can tell) had nothing to do with creating.
but i also wish (maybe unfairly) that i could count on prosecutors to be a firewall against these kinds of bad acts by the bush administration.
and yes, i absolutely think that the defendant should be let go if a fair case can not be made - no matter how guilty the law enforcement people think the defendant is…. because that is sometimes all that protects the innocent from false arrest and imprisonment.
rwcole @ 109
Ha. You funny boy.
We’l be at the beach.
Maybe we’ll Play Football.
Football can wait too.
I think there’ll be a few more games…
demi is happy…*g* You really like camping, don’t you?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 105
True and probably 90plus% that come to trial are dead ass guilty..but how many afford to appeal with good lawyers. I guess the misconduct issue was really brought to my attention by the Maryland case where the defendant spent 13 years on death row and the problems with proving his innocence. (As an old 60’s lefty that Obama disparages, I have a problem with the 99 guilty and 1 innocent in prison.)
dakine01 @ 68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd6sb8jQsdc
encephalopath @ 78
WE haven’t decided that. The unconvicted felons running the government decided that.
But, of course, we knew that.
rwcole @ 90
Stolberg writes:
This is what gets me about reporters like Stolberg. These are two preliminary studies. She doesn’t go into the details of either. She just announces that the debate is now equal because that is what the White House told her. She just states it as fact.
In scientific terms, the jury is still out. It sounds like a promising line of enquiry but only time will tell if it pans out. The scientific debate is only beginning. How is it that the political one, per Stolberg, has already ended?
Biodun @ 113
Yes, sir.
Do you know how much better food tastes when you eat it out it the great outdoors?
We went last year for Thanksgiving and the place was full up.
And, the smells….omg.
And then a moonlit stroll on the beach after dinner…
Campfire, guitar and singing and wine.
What could be better?
Jane’s upstairs…
dinner alfresco…
Hugh
It’s a favorite wing nut move…..
They say the moon’s made of green cheese- someone else says “no it’s not- we have moon rocks that show what it’s made of”
Wingnut finds a scientist who agrees with his position- without pointing out that the guy in in a home for the criminal insane- so now the argument is “EQUAL” Your rocks vs my expert.
It’s just a matter of “opinion” and mine’s as good as yours….
They took sophomoric relativity to a new dimension of stupidity- and the keep gettin away with it!!
Biodun @ 120
Si, senor.
If it’s warmish in March when you visit…we could make it happen.
(Oh, and I do the lace table cloth, candles and real wine glasses too.)
Can’t drink on San Diego beaches any more…So what the fuck is the damned beach FOR?
rwcole @ 123
Come up to Oxnard and join us!
Have a great time Demi!
It is colder than a well diggers a$$ up here in WA.
Inside games for Busted.
rwcole @ 93 - they’re full of grits.
demi @ 118
I’m not much into camping myself (liked it as a kid, but…don’t like bugs much), still your description makes it sound absolutely delightful. More since it’s at the beach, which I do love. Enjoy!
Diane @ 126
Now c’mon. Even some of us here at the Lake like to eat grits.
The folks in SC may be full of it, but prol’ly something other than grits.
selise — I was chopping celery and it hit me why we’re talking past each other on this. Maybe this will help:
If a prosecutor has after-discovered evidence — say they find something in the file that should have been turned over in discovery but it inadvertantly wasn’t or something — they are supposed to immediately get it to defense counsel and the court, especially if it is exculpatory in nature. If the prosecutors in this case, for instance, had known that some illegal means of surveillance was being used, they should have turned that over.
However, in this particular case, what it looks like is that the court, defense counsel and the prosecutors all found out about potential evidence that may or may not have been used against this defendant that may or may not have been initially gathered in an illegal manner. But none of them have seen the evidence, nor do they know if it does or does not apply to this particular defendant — so they are in a sort of legal limbo on this until they see the evidence OR the judge decides the legal limbo is untenable and grants the motion for a new trial or to dismiss altogether.
A prosecutor cannot really stand there and argue for dismissal where a jury verdict has been rendered in terms of guilt — unless there is substantial evidence in hand of misconduct, which is a whole other level of argument altogether. But that doesn’t mean that the prosecutor is going to stand there and fight really hard to keep the person in jail if they suspect problems, either, which gives the judge a signal as well.
There is a lot of courtroom choreography that goes on under thr radar. And not having been in thsi courtroom, I have no idea how that has been playing out. But, with regard to evidence that the government might have had in hand to start with — if they knew of misconduct, it would have been their obligation to come forward with that knowledge. In this case, though, it appears that we all found out with the NYTimes article revealing it — and that they have been trying to dig to determine whether or not there is a problem with this case ever since.
Does that help? Governemnt attorneys can be a firewall to bad acts — and ought to be — if they discover that evidence is being withheld that exhonorates the defendant. In fact, it’s a huge ethical no no not to turn that sort of information over and can result in immediate dismissal of a case — and should, because that’s flat out wrong. But, as I said, the AUSAs and defense counsel seem to have found out about this around the same time…and have both been trying to get at the facts as they apply to this defendent.
You crack me up Christy.
Choppin’ celery, blogging and arguing a point all at the same time.
Happy Thanksgiving dear.
dakine01 - just a joke - I’m living in NC & eat grits sweetened with jam.
tejanarusa @ 116
Yes the same crminals
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI.....nnSTCVideo
Diane @ 131
I’m a Kentucky born and grew up on grits. Having lived all over the country, I’ve also dealt with folks who use grits as the metaphor to trash the south so…
I still prefer hot buttered grits with pepper but also love the leftovers into a pan, refrigerated overnight, cut into rectangles, and fried in some bacon grease. Cover with gravy or maple syrup and yummy!
P J Evans @ 81
As they say down in Texas, Bush is All codpiece, no cod.
tejanarusa @ 116
There are values in conflict here, obviously. The Government has a perfectly legitimate interest in keeping “sources and methods” intelligence information classified. Defendants have a Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial, to confront witnesses, etc. It’s a balancing act, and the Government has to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether putting a particular defendant away is worth the risk of revealing secrets they don’t want to reveal.
That is, of course, the essence of the graymail defense — it’s defense counsel putting the Government to precisely that Hobson’s choice.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 129 -
thanks christy, i think that does help…. maybe the prosecutors have been spending all their time the last 18 months arguing to get the “secret” info out and not arguing the gov. position that the case shouldn’t be retried. the article really doesn’t say that’s not the case…. and i probably should be giving the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt.
it’s very sad that the faith i used to have in the system has been so undermined that it’s hard for me to give the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt that they should have and that every person is entitled to.
from the politicalization of the doj, to the doj’s complicity in the padilla case, to the messed up prosecutions of so-called terrorists (like brendan mayfield), to the people i’ve seen arrested at protests because the police didn’t like their politics, to my own chief of police saying publicly (in a city hall mtg) that people (including me) who participated in a legal silent peace vigil were a potential threat to society (that’s why he sent his officers to take identifying photos of all of us)…. well, i’ve come a long way from the kid 35 years ago who learned to trust the system from a military tribunal that trusted me and found me not guilty of parking my bicycle in the wrong place. :(
Loo Hoo. @ 12
Not to be too picky, but is that a statement about how scripted all the candidates’ answers are?
rwcole @ 47
If George had come from a poor White working class family he probably would’ve been beaten up regularly in school and spent several years in juvie and perhaps a couple in prison.
If George had been from a poor Black family he’d be dead by now.
The only reason he’s survived at all is MONEY. The only reason he’s president is MONEY. The only reason he hasn’t been impeached & kicked out is MONEY.
Edwards for president — Leadership for ALL of America, not just MONEYed interests.
Steve-AR @ 92
Apparently we need some pretty significant judicial reform.