But don’t just take my word for it.

Back in 2007, NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen noted how FDL’s coverage of the Libby trial taught the mainstream media what they apparently had forgotten how to do:

FDL had more people [than the traditional media outlets] on the story (six contributors, all housed together). They cared more about documenting every turn. They knew more about the case because they had been writing about it for longer, and they didn’t want to disappoint their supporters.

But wait a minute: bloggers do views, not news, right? They’re like a giant op-ed page, but without decorum. Bloggers are parasitic on reporting that originates elsewhere. Bloggers have an ax to grind, so their reports aren’t going to be reliable. Besides, bloggers don’t do reporting, really. Their trade is opinion (“…and don’t get me wrong, I think that’s great.”) These ideas are “fixed” points for a lot of journalists. And the example of Firedoglake at the Libby trial disconfirms them all.

It was the most basic kind of journalism imaginable. You’re my eyes and ears, Christy. Tell me what happened today. When it came time to interpret, to get inside the heads of the key actors, they rose to that challenge too.

After praising FDL and calling out the traditional media, Rosen gazed into his crystal ball and pulled out what in retrospect (remember, this was 2007!) is a stunner of a prediction (emphasis added), as he criticized anti-blogger, old-school journalists:

They [FDL] also recorded more of the event in “just the facts” style than the neutrals in the establishment press. So who’s the drudge of what is news? I’m just advising Newsroom Joe and Jill: make room for FDL in your own ideas about what’s coming on, news-wise. Don’t let your own formula (blog=opinion) fake you out. A conspiracy of the like minded to find out what happened when the national news media isn’t inclined to tell us might be way more practical than you think.

If I understand your church, there’s nothing more sacred in it than good old fashioned shoe leather reporting— being there, asking questions and taking notes, scrambling to get down what happened. And yet here are these sinners—Atrios calls them the Dirty F__king Hippies—who walk off the jetways and do just that, the basic reporting, better than the people to whom it is religion. Wild month for the church, right?

When you fast forward to 2011, it sure looks like Rosen was onto something, doesn’t it?

Since then, FDL has taken on all kinds of other things, including liveblogging the Prop 8 trial, standing up for the rule of law when it comes to foreclosure fraud and Bradley Manning,  and tracking the events in the middle east and north Africa. No matter what the issue, the same emphasis on not just reporting but interpreting as well has come through.

• Accurately and honestly reporting what is going on.
• Demanding accountability for wrongdoing.
• Calling out giveaways for the rich few at the expense of the many poor.
• Pushing for remedies that help to make things better.
• Challenging not only opponents but allies.

FDL may have coined the term “Veal Pen,” but we sure don’t live in one.

If you like “what’s coming on, news-wise” you might click over to the FDL membership program page and sign up if you haven’t already done so. (If you have already done so, many thanks!)

And I have a feeling that a couple of years from now, I’ll be looking back at this membership drive and saying “That’s another big turning point — look at what FDL has been doing since then!”

Wouldn’t you like to be able to take a bow and say “I helped make it happen”? It’s just a click away.

Back in the old days, the only way to access a case file was to physically go into the courthouse, sign out the file from the court clerk’s office and sit there in the clerk’s office reading it. If you were lucky, there might be a largely un-usable photo copy machine that would eat most of your quarters and give you a couple of barely legible copies.

Being a lawyer is SUCH a glamorous job.

The only folks who would really do much of that kind of thing were: lawyers who were in the courthouse anyway, reporters who get paid to go get information, and a few lay people who cared passionately about a given case and were willing to take a weekday off from their day jobs to go to the courthouse. Anybody remember Pach’s famous trip to go get transcripts of one of the Libby pre-trial proceedings?

Now, due to the wonders of ECF, the federal court’s “Electronic Case Management” system and it’s companion “PACER” which allows anyone with a credit card registered with the PACER system to download and print PDF’s of the documents filed with the court; any pajama clad, pasty faced basement dweller can access, read and print copies of almost all the documents filed with the court. The usual exceptions to that being things filed ex parte or things filed under seal.

On September 10th, The Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States opened a comment period for public comment on a proposal to restrict access to plea agreements in criminal cases.

To understand what you will lose out on if this restriction goes into effect, check out Marcy’s post here.

The purported rationale for this is that these plea agreements “may” contain information identifying defendants who are cooperating with law enforcement.

That’s just silly. Any AUSA worth spit knows how to use the phrase “confidential informant A” (or B or C as the case may be). If the Regent Law School grads are too dumb to do that, well….

Now more seriously. If you review the incremental work of the judicial conference in this area, over the past few years you will see that they have actually been liberalizing public access to this kind of information. And our beloved Judge Hogan made history by allowing live blogging of the Libby Trial.

LHP ♥s federal judges.

So, pups. I think this request for comments might actually be a request to those of us out here who actually make good and valuable use of the access they have so thoughtfully provided, to help them help us. After all, this is the groundbreaking site that brought the world the first liveblogged federal trial. You all have lots of credibility on this issue.

I think it would be quite useful to them if they received many well reasoned and eloquent comments that explain why transparency is so vital, and how the harms they fear can be minimized. Before writing, if you can spare the time, take a read through the second link and see what they have done and how they have surgically addressed prior privacy concerns.

In the comment period, they are also seeking alternative suggestions rather than a mere “yeah” or “nay”. So, this is your opportunity to offer your own suggestions about public access to the federal courts system.

When was the last time someone gave YOU an opportunity to help set a policy for all the federal courts to follow? I think the US Judicial Conference is exhibiting the healthiest regard for participatory Democracy we have seen in quite a while, so let’s respond in kind. Please keep your emails to them, respectful and constructive—and on point—we want this outreach to be SO successful that they will repeat it in future.

Maybe some other branches of government might even be shamed into following suit?

We got special insights from Jeralyn for the defense tactics, Christy for the prosecution, and Marcy for the experience of blogging the trial in real time These three pioneers of the new journalism related stories about encounters with the trial lawyers — Wells didn’t do his best crying act — and the Libby partisans — Mrs. Libby apparently has mesmerizing hair — as well as the clashes of attorney styles and ego.

Christy and Marcy also focused on the relationship with members of the mainstream media, and what it was like to win recognition and grudging respect from the reporters who came to understand that their future was sitting next to them, filing in the background they didn’t know, explaining the relevance of arguments they couldn’t quite follow because they hadn’t done the homework the bloggers had done. The bloggers had read the filings and cross checked them against known facts (like the book Marcy wrote).

It must have been a nervous moment for some old-line reporters, watching this group of unknown bloggers who they previously thought of only as DFH, high on snark, and then watch them beat the pants off the dozens of regular reporters. What must they have thought as they realized here was a group of highly intelligent, incredibly well informed and diligent Americans digging into every detail, reading the pleadings, doing their jobs in ways they no longer understood. Who were these people, blogging the trial not just with Q&A summaries but instant analysis, context, meaning, and commentatry filled with insights and relevance — and a picture.

And I suspect the reporters had a sense that these irreverent bloggers were on to them. As Marcy noted today, the bloggers knew what none in the MSM every admitted, that the Libby trial was just as much about the media’s complicity and its seduction by the favors of privileged access as it was the lies and obstruction of Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. And when the verdict came down, it was not just Libby who was found guilty, but some of the best known media personalities as well.

I’m a stong believer that people matter, that individuals can make a huge difference, and this incomparable team of dedicated, brlliant bloggers confirmed that for me. But if you have any doubts, consider the impact of Shelly Snook, an attorney and media coordinator for Judge Walton’s District Court.

It was Shelly Snook, working with Judge Walton, who worked out the unprecedented arrangements that brought this blogging Trojan Horse within the walls, only to find it filled with Jane and Pach, Christy and Jeralyn, and Marcy, who then swarmed into the courtroom and the media center and out across the toobz. It was Snook and Walton who made sure these bloggers were there and had everything they needed to do their jobs. Snook seems like a total professional, a straight shooter, and a guy who would simply explain, as he did today, that he was just doing his job. But I think it was more than that, because you could tell this man understands what his efforts allowed and what these bloggers accomplished.

If Shelly Snook had been someone else, anyone else, live blogging of the Libby trial might never have happened, or might have been severely limited by typical bureaucratic rules that would have handicapped the effort. But the opposite happened, and Shelly and his Judge are a large part of the reason. On today’s panel, Sheldon Snook played it absolutely straight, as one might expect from an unbiased professional, an honest officer of the court. But he must have known that this was not an ordinary trial, and that it required more than ordinary media coverage. And by choosing to do his job the way he did, he made sure that this special coverage happened.

So far, the Libby trial is the only moment of legal accountability we’ve had (or may ever have) regarding the lies that misled a nation and took it to war. That part of the system worked. George Bush commuted Libby’s sentence but he cannot erase the trial and the fact that millions of Americans now know much more about what this White House did, thanks to a small group of people who knew this was important.

I saw a panel of fine Americans today, people who just did their jobs as citizens, and it made all the difference.

If you are attending Yearly Kos in Chicago, it’s time to mark your calendars for opening day, August 2. You won’t want to miss your esteemed hostess Christy Hardin-Smith and indispensable FDL contributor Marcy Wheeler of The Next Hurrah provide their behind-the-scenes look at live-blogging the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Also on the panel is Sheldon Snook, the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Sheldon (who goes by his nickname Shelly) was the court official in charge of news media at the Libby trial.

I’ll be there as well, moderating the panel.

I’m sure I don’t need to remind FDL readers, but I will anyway, that Firedoglake provided ground-breaking coverage of the trial. As the New York Times wrote:

A collective of liberal bloggers, fueled by online donations and a fanatical devotion to the intricacies of the Libby case, Firedoglake has offered intensive trial coverage, using some six contributors in rotation. They include a former prosecutor, a current defense lawyer, a Ph.D. business consultant and a movie producer, all of whom lodge at a Washington apartment rented for the duration of the trial.

All day long during the trial, one Firedoglake blogger is on duty to beam to the Web from the courthouse media room a rough, real-time transcript of the testimony. With no audio or video feed permitted, the Firedoglake “live blog” has offered the fullest, fastest public report available. Many mainstream journalists use it to check on the trial.

While the Libby trial was not, as some reported early on, the first federal trial in D.C. covered by a credentialed blogger (see the appended correction to the New York Times article) it was the first federal trial in which the court intentionally provided such credentials. As Sheldon Snook said before the trial started:

“Bloggers are part of the media landscape and if we were to ignore bloggers, we would be ignoring reality,” Snook said.

Some of the topics we’ll be covering are the credentialing process, the challenges of blogging in real time, the back-end work required and costs incurred in hosting a live trial blog, what bloggers brought to the mix, how we interacted with and were treated by the MSM and how varied our individual perspectives were, allowing us to provide political commentary as well as legal, both from a prosecution and defense point of view.

But enough about us. The largest portion of the panel will be devoted to your questions. We’ll also share some gossip and back-scenes stories. That will be the fun part.

Please join us.

(New York Times photo of Plame House )

Over the next 12 months, Congress and the Supreme Court imposed many of the restrictions that Cheney had squelched.”

The irony with the Cheney crowd pushing the envelope on presidential power is that the president has now ended up with lesser powers than he would have had if they had made less extravagant, monarchical claims,” said Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Flanigan, a founding member of that crowd, said he still believes that Addington and Yoo were right in their “application of generally accepted constitutional principles.” But he acknowledged that many battles ended badly. “The Supreme Court,” Flanigan said, “decided to change the rules.” Even so, Cheney’s losses were not always as they appeared.  (emphasis mine)

Yep, it’s all the mean Supreme Court’s fault that they wanted the Vice President’s minions and everyone else across the government to follow the laws as they are written, including longstanding principles of due process.  Shocking, that.  I picked up some reporting that Jane did on Mr. Flanigan from the early days of the Fitzgerald investigation, and I wanted to amplify something. From Jane:

A lot was made about the resignation of James Comey this week, Fitzgerald’s boss and the one who purportedly assigned him to Plame in the first place. It didn’t help matters when it was announced that BushCo. put forward former Tyco attorney Timothy Flanigan to take his place this week. It looked like the justice department was trying to ease Comey out and put in someone who would be more amenable to firing Fitzgerald off the Plame case, which — at this point in time — it seems they could conceivably do.

But Comey announced his resignation in March of this year; he’d had his eye on the AG job, and when that went to Abu Gonzales it was well known that he would probably return to the private sector where he could make some serious bank. It hit the headlines because the Senate Judiciary Committee interviewed Flanigan this week, and Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced that the dude made him queasy. It probably wasn’t the news a lot of folks thought it was.

At that time, all signs were pointing to Rove, because he was going in and out of the grand jury along with all of his various minions (like Susan Ralston) as though it were a revolving testimonial door. But, in hindsight, the Flanigan maneuver was more likely an attempt to keep Dick safe, not Rove. In which case, the Comey delegation of Fitzgerald supervisory authority to Margolis was even more of an FU than we originally thought. 

Because through the Libby indictment and subsequent trial, a whole lot of Cheney’s soft underbelly of media manipulation, manufactured story plants, intelligence cherry-picking and subsequent planting for media dissemination, and all sorts of other juicy bits and pieces got exposed.  And, for a man as obsessed with keeping his secrets as Dick Cheney is, that had to hurt. 

Sitting here thinking about that this morning makes me smile.  Sometimes, it’s the little things…

Sure brings the whole shrieking Comstock and Matalin media blitz in the op-ed pages of late into a much crisper focus — because it is still, just as it always has been, about protecting Dick Cheney’s secrets.  Except now, with the little dribbles that have already come out, people have realized that they were manipulated, had and used for Dick Cheney’s own power-consolidating machinations…and so people are starting to talk, even people close to Dick Cheney who previously would have been too afraid to do so.

And once it starts, it’s awfully hard to bottle all that pent-up frustration and that need for payback, isn’t it?  You don’t rise to the top without stepping on an awful lot of people the way that Dick Cheney operates.  And, at the moment, he’s more of a liability than he is an asset to the long-term health of the Republican party.  Especially when you consider that 2008 is fast approaching.  Whatever Michael Gerson may say about Cheney being “principled,” as Rick Perlstein said yesterday when we were on Sam Seder’s show, that’s just conservative code for “authoritarian.”  And there should be no running away or throwing Dick in front of an oncoming bus for the good of the GOP’s future, because they have propped him and his policies up every step of the way.  The Republican party allowed Dick Cheney’s rise to unfettered, manipulative power broker in the White House and in the party — they can damn well face the consequences for his actions right along with him as well.

(Photo of the Mosler safe doors at The Greenbrier via The Brookings Institution.)

UPDATE:  Comment of the day from Diane:   “I can picture Dick sitting at his desk, pen in hand, writing in the margins of the WaPo.”

Walton basically accepted the premise of Fitz' sentencing arguments, which put the range for the obstruction up to 30-37 months, but on the basis of the fact that Libby is a nice guy, took the lowest end of that range, 30 months. He gave him 15 on the other countrs, concurrent, but those other counts need to be recalculated, bc one should be lower and one should be higher. So the sentence is 30 months, but on stay until the Probation department does new calculations.

As to bond pending appeal, Walton basically said no, but Defense can submit a memo. That is due on Thrsday, and then the govt's is due on Tuesday, with Libby's response due on Wednesday. If Walton decides against bond pending appeal after reading those motions, then it all goes to the prison system and Libby goes to jail in normal schedule, which would be about 45-60 days.

The basis defense argued for appeal is twofold: that Walton rejected the memory defense, and Fitz' appointment in general. Walton basically said, "If you could introduce a memory expert on the basis of that hearing, we'd have to let in any thing, because there was no basis for applicability in this." As to Fitz' appointment, Walton said that, although no one oversaw Fitz' actions WRT this case, he was subject to normal discipline if he did anything bad. The fact that Sampson considered firing Fitzgerald is evidence of this in this case. 

Reggie said something very important WRT this issue. He said that if Fitz' appointment were improper, then it would mean no one high in government, and no one in the justice system, could be held accountable for the things they did unless there were a way to appoint a prosecutor free of DOJ oversight in the particular case. 

You think maybe Judge Walton has given some consideration of the possibility that high level DOJ employees might be indicted for things recently?

I'm headed out the pressers, will come back for an update then.

Update: No pressers. Neither side had a comment, ostensibly because they've got to come back for next week's hearing (on Wednesday) on bail pending appeal. 

Now it's either beer thirty or I'm going to try to sneak into the SJC hearing. Can anyone tell me if it's beer thirty in DC? 

Wells: all we’re asking is a right to file a full brief.

Wells Fitz told me it was his position that he did not see Libby as flight risk. Would agree to reasonable surrender date. I told him in light of that.

Walton: I don’t have a problem with having you all submit something so I can rethink it. How much time will govt need,

Fitz: If we could have 10 days.

Wells: that’s too long, we have to get to Court of Appeal. I would ask govt to file brief by Monday, we’ll reply by Tuesday, so if your honor does not change, we can get right to Court of Appeals.

Fitz: My only point is we don’t have a head start on brief, I assume they’ve though through what they’re going to represent.

Walton: Thursday for filing of defense. Monday for filing of, actually, Tuesday for govt, and

Wells We'll respond in 24 hours. 

Walton; 1:30 on Thursday for hearing.

Wells: WRT surrender date, Fitz has no objection to reasonable date.

Walton: I don't do that, if I don't file notice bail pending appeal, generally takes 45-60 days.

Fitz: Wanted your honor to make aware of one thing. 30 months on obstruction. Just wanted to point out, if your honor was trying to correspond, one would be lower and one would be higher. By our read on false statements would have a 6, would mean guidelines range for false statement is 0-6 months, on other hand, perjury counts, level 14, but your honor found intereference enhancement, perjury 24-30 months.

Walton: I was under the impression it was all counts.

Fitz: if we do not litigate now, I'd like to make sure it's on the record that a level 17 would be range of perjury counts, in light of your honor's ruling, false statements would be 0 to 6, we were not as clear as we should have been.

Walton: does probation agree with those assessments?

Walton: I'm going to stay the sentence at this point until Probation has had a chance to break down sentence, until next Wednesday.

Probation: In original calculation, we grouped all four counts, that changes the calculations, and prosecutor is correct that it lowers level for some accounts.

Walton: I'll stay until Probation does the new calculations. 

Um, is it too early for beer thirty? 

Back in

Mr. Libby’s status. Only issue is whether appeal would raise substantial questions of law or fact.

Wells: Our position that based on number of extensive opinions your honor could rule form bench that there are substantial issues.

Walton: I think all those opinions are correct.

Wells: WRT to appointments clause issue, tension between Larson and Edmond, this issue is clearly one that raises novel issues for which there is no controlling case law. Similarly, wrt memory expert, in your honor’s extensive opinion, your honor recognized was question of first impression. Those two issues by themselves.

Those by themselves would justify bail pending appeal. Other opinions your honor recognizes novelty. To the extent your honor would briefing, we could have briefing by eod Thursday. On those two issues alone, we meet the standard. We don’t have to establish with caselaw there is a probability, we only have to prove there are substantial questions, wrt to those alone, the court recognizes that the court was going into uncharted territory.

Walton Govt

Fitz: Your honor, we’d disagree, either wrt appointments clause or memory expert. It is not unique to deny expert memory, done after full and fair hearing.

Walton On issue of memory expert, I have no question. Testimony presented by witness was totally lacking both factual and from a legal perspective, if on that record, we’re not being gatekeepers as Doubert would require, if that were admissible, we could never keep out anything. I don’t see any basis for any potential reversal.

Walton: as far as appointment clause, the question is the extent to which there is appropriate supervision over Mr. Fitz and his operation. He was obviously confirmed by senate, occupies a position in Chicago as USA, he was tasked to conduct this investigation, even though AG, and DAG, have recused themselves, there was no indication they had recused themselves wrt supervisory issues if he did not conduct himself according to rules and regulations of DOJ.

Otherwise it seems to me that people who occupy high levels of DOJ, it would mean people who have direct responsibility for DOJ couldn’t be brought in.

[note, this is relevant to the USA purge]

Jeffress: your honor said tension between these cases. Your honor spent 29 pages resolving that. You didn’t do it bc it was an easy question. You recognize there is no case directly on point. I have no doubt that your decisions are correct. Release pending appeal does not require judges to correct their own errors. What is required is that there be a close issue, one that could be decided the other way.

There are numerous issues on which your honor submitted lengthy opinions. The court should allow us to resolve a brief on this issue. Release pending appeal does not require you to say that you were wrong. Judge Friedman, on releasing Safavian. We’d like to submit a brief on this.

Walton: I have fully rethought those decision. I think I’m right.

Obviously, statute requires sentence that protects public. I have to consider the type of sentences available, I have option of imposing sentence from probation to max, I have to consider need to avoid disparities. Creates real challenge. Bc. Obviously, one one hand, there are reasons why departure might be appropriate, On other hand, consdiering nature of offense, that conduct in my view counters against imposing a sentence that departs. In the end, my view that those factors balance themselves out, which causes me to conclude that sentence does fall and should fall within the guidelines.

I don't think high end is necessary.  30 months FIne him $250,000

Within 72 hours report to probation department and abide by supervised release.

In ref to obstruction, 30 months, To other counts, to 15 months, concurrent. Supervised release for 2 years following release from detenino. 

He must provide sample of DNA, he will be required to contribute 400 hour of community service.

Short break, will proceed with bond issue.

11:54

11:34 

Libby, Wells, Jeffress at podium. 

Walton: I have reviewed memoranda submitted by counsel. I also reviewed the sentencing memoranda themselves, articulating the respective positions. I have also reviewed the letters submitted both on behalf of Mr Libby and. I believe all of those letters have been made available and will be made available to public. Considered sentencing guidelines.

Walton: I didnt' welcome havign to sentence Libby, for any sentencing, most difficult task a person serving as a judge, particularly hard in a case involving someone based upon those who know Mr Libby compared those those viewing the situation from afar, have said about Mr. Libby and what type of person he is and the contributions he has made to society and his family. Those letters reflect the fact that Libby, despite the fact he could have remained in private practice, making much more than public servants, and took positions in govt.

[Libby looks stiff, ghost white]

Walton I don't doubt based on information that I have been privvy to that contrary to what a lot of people may not understand that Libby along with the entire intelligence community has played  a central role in keeping our country safe. Unfortunately the people who do thata work don't recieve accolades in general. On one hand, I have an indivi I have to sentence, but for has done good for society.

Walton: One starts out with factors, under that statute, requires statute that is sufficent but not greater than factors set forth in provision, obviously factors I've just indicated regarding Libby's personal situation. There is the other side of the picture. I appreciate that somtimes people make mistakes. Contrary to what a lot of people have said, regarding this case and investigation, and attacks that have been made, I think are misplaced, the evidence overwhlemingly indicated Libby's culpability despite best efforts of counsel. I've watched these proceedings with a sense of sadness bc I have highest respect for govt servants. Important taht we expect and demand a lot of people who are in those situations. They have a certain high level obligation when they occupy that situation. In this situation Libby failed to meet the bar. COntrary to what he has done in his life. My take on evidnece presented, no evidence that Mr Libby knew that Ms Wilson status was, but being NSA for VP seems to me that anybody in that high level position had a unique obligation that before they said aything said anything associated iwth national security agency. Take every effort possible they woul dknow that that person was not in position taht could compromise them, others, or this nation. 

11;42 

When confronted, He had articles the suggestion that this was a fleeting event, that’s just not borne out by evidence ,had conversation with VP about Ms Wilson, conversations with indivs at CIA, all of those efforts are inconsistent with saying this was a passing point. Just not borne out by facts. That’s extrememly troublesome. Special obligation they don’t do anything that could cause problem.

I've got sentencing guidelines. I've got to pay attention to those. I've got to pay attention to guidelines because people need to believe there's some consistency.