Libby Live: Mystery Witness

firedoglake.com ^ | 2/12/07 | firedoglake.com

[nopardons]

bttt

[nopardons]

YIKES!

[the Real fifi]

No. It was started by his friend david Corn.

[roses of sharon]

That's right! Chrissy did have someone there, maybe it was Corn, or he had read it in a Corn article.

Anyway, same difference, lol.

[roses of sharon]

Walton is being snarky about an appeals ct, obviously he wants the Admin to get negative headlines of GUILTY!

[processing please hold]

Isn't firedoglake a leftist blog?

[Bahbah]

Isn't firedoglake a leftist blog?

Yes it is. However, I think they were chosen for this thread is because they are doing a really good job of transcribing the testimony. It isn't much good for anything else :)

[processing please hold]

Thank you.

[CutePuppy]

If the judge and the prosecutor actually cared about the FACTS they would support a broad presentation of the defense

Well, we know prosecutor doesn't care about the FACTS, or there would be no "investigation" to begin with... his career is in shambles, several of his recent Chicago cases ended less than in stellar fashion, most of the time he beat his accused into plea bargain by throwing "obstruction" and "perjury" charges - his MO, in absence of real case (so is Spitzer's) - he needs this conviction, or he's done.

In any case, if some people on the jury have any brains, they would see today from Woodward and Novak and others :

That WH didn't have any involvement with so-called "leak"
That Armitage who actually "leaked" it to Novak is not indicted
That multiple reporters testify that, given the chance to really leak information and "out" Valerie "the spy" Plame, Libby didn't take the opportunity (some "conspiracy"!)
That nobody considered information about Valerie Plame very secret
That Matt Cooper had to call Libby to casually "confirm" the info he got from someone else (yet Libby is still "classified" as a "source" of information)
That the entire Wilson-Plame "punishment" scenario has been thoroughly impeached by defense
That the only count that has not been impeached yet by the defense - Russert's contradiction - is being fought tooth and nail by the prosecution...

DC venue and jury is and has been the only reason Fitz went that far with this travesty. He ain't even cutting it in Chicago no mo'.

So, we'll see if DC juries have brains and willing to set aside their political loyalties, or they'll be joined together forever in the same breath as LA's OJ jury... It's their call... I don't see any "jury book" money or celebrity coming for them in case of conviction - the evidence is sooo against that, and media while "getting" a Bush/Cheney VIP, being caught in prosecutorial entrapment, didn't really get what they really wanted and in process came out smelling like a wet rat in all of this.

Armitage, Grossman, Comey, Eckenrode, Harlow, few others are "outed" from their government careers with spots on their records, some others let it be unmasked which political sides they're on... never good for someone posing as non-political career professional.

[Enchante]

"1) Does anybody here remember prominent NeoCon Richard Armitage's mea culpa...."

ROFLMAO! Typical imbecilic DU blather...... anyone who so describes Armitage is far too stupid, dishonest, and/or ignorant to discuss any of these matters intelligently. Armitage is far from a "neo-con" (so far as that term has any meaning at all). He opposed the invasion of Iraq and views attempts to re-shape the Middle East in our favor as ridiculous. Armitage is as hostile to the Bush WH as most MSM reporters. He is more of the "realist" school ala Scowcroft, so far as his views are known to the public. Certainly it is ridiculous for DU-bozos to try to draw a circle around Armitage, Woodward, and the Bush WH as engaged together in one big conspiracy. Both Armitage and Woodward would have liked nothing better than to have another so-called Watergate over this crap.

[CutePuppy]

Yes, I was surprised that several times he said something like, "Now, an appeals court might see it differently, but . . . " It's almost like he's inviting a challenge, and expecting to lose it.

If members on this DC jury are so boneheaded or so hateful (or possibly cowed by other members of the jury) that they can't see through this Fitzgerald's "made of whole cloth" case by now and decide to convict Libby nonetheless, then no other defense is going to help.

At least, to paraphrase John Lennon "give man a chance" on appeal, courtesy of judge Walton :~) Libby, at a minimum, deserves that, if he can't get fair trial from "jury of his peers"...

[Freee-dame]

Ya know...you would think the NEWS people would at least have the correct reason for the trial...

They claim they read a variety of news sources. When they read the WaPo, NYTimes, LATimes, Time and Newsweek, they just read the same thing five times. Too bad they don't want to read the Washington Times or websites like FreeRepublic so they could be more fully informed.

[Txsleuth]

LOL...you are very right.

[Enchante]

"I don't see any "jury book" money or celebrity coming for them in case of conviction"

Probably right, but they may not know that, so it could still operate as a motivation for some/all of a DC jury. With all the Putzer, er, Pulitzer prize winners traipsing through the courtroom the jurors must feel as though they're at the center of the universe for this trial. Only a conviction would allow the jurors to dream of fame and riches -- they know that if they acquit or end up with a hung jury they will want to slink out of town in the middle of the night and hide out from all the angry DC liberals and DBM a-holes.

[CutePuppy]

..."but they may not know that, so it could still operate as a motivation for some/all of a DC jury."

Well, if they're not capable of understanding that on their own, someone ought to explain it to them. The term "useful idiots" would apply perfectly in this case... One reason that the media wants no part of this case, is that the media like to be judge and jury, but doesn't like to be on trial. Who would want to ruin his/her career trying to write a book about trial essentially without a crime that has been completely covered already?

Haven't they noticed almost complete lack of interest in the regular media, except by some no-ratings MSNBC shows? Even they should understand there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow at the end of that road... There are no "secret intelligence" documents or revelations that they have seen that are not known to anybody who would care about this "affair", on the contrary, it's far more likely that they have actually seen less than people sitting in the courtroom, covering the trial.

There are no books (not even Plame / Wilson's anymore, I believe all their advances or commitments have been withdrawn), no movie rights or Oprah interviews that they can parlay into fame or fortune. If Oliver Stone types want to do one, they certainly don't need peons from the jury for that.

[Txsleuth]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

Here are some summary notes at JOM...with links.

[Enchante]

btw, the next step in fraud-artists Joe and Valerie's civil lawsuit against Cheney, Armitage, Libby and Rove is a February 15, 2007 deadline for the "defendants" to file their response briefs to the Wilsons' claims of "retaliation"..... I can't see how that theory can hold any water with anyone who's not psychotic after today's testimony..... how long can Joe and Valerie keep their fundraising machine going now that it's too obvious to ignore that their lawsuit is a fraud??

---

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/node/72


The Defendants File Motions to Dismiss

-- On November 14, 2006, in response to Joe and Valerie Wilsons' lawsuit, Vice President Richard Cheney, the vice-president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage all filed motions to dismiss the claims against them.

All of the defendants allege that their positions as high level government employees protect them from suit. They also argue that disclosing Valerie Wilson’s classified CIA employment as part of a conspiracy to discredit, punish and seek revenge against Joe Wilson was within the scope of their employment. In other words, they were just doing their jobs and, therefore, are immune from suit.

The U.S. Government Files a Motion to Dismiss and a Statement of Interest

In addition, the United States government filed a statement of interest (an explanation of the government's view of the case) and a motion to dismiss the claim that the defendants' disclosure of personal information about the Wilsons violated District of Columbia law. Like the individual defendants, the government claims that when the top officials were engaged in unlawful acts against the Wilsons, they were acting within the scope of their employment.

Ironically, at the same time that the U.S. government is declaring that each of the defendants acted within the scope of his employment by disclosing Valerie Wilson’s identity as a covert operative, the government has also brought a criminal case against Mr. Libby for crimes related to the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA operative.

The government can't have it both ways. Mr. Libby can't have both violated the law and legitimately acted within the scope of his employment.


HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS

Absolute Immunity

Defendant Cheney's Argument:
Vice President Cheney claims that the vice president, like the president, is absolutely immune from all lawsuits stemming from any action he may have taken while in office.

The Wilsons' Response:
Absolute immunity does not extend to the vice president. The Supreme Court has afforded only the president absolute immunity from all civil lawsuits, finding that private lawsuits would distract the president from his duties and raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While history and the U.S. Constitution support absolute immunity for the president, there is no precedent for extending absolute immunity to the vice president.

Qualified Immunity

The Defendants' Argument:
All defendants, with the support of the United States government, claim that they enjoy qualified immunity -- meaning that although they may not be immune from all lawsuits like the president -- they cannot be sued for violating the Wilsons' constitutional rights. According to the defendants, they could not have known that when they conspired to create a whispering campaign against the Wilsons, which involved disclosing Valerie's status as a covert CIA operative, they were violating the Wilsons' rights.

The Wilsons' Response:
None of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity. They all knew that what they were doing was wrong and they went ahead anyway, with no regard for the predictable consequences.

First Amendment Violation

The Defendants' Argument:
Each of the four defendants claims that Joe Wilson's First Amendment right to freedom of speech was not violated because his ability to speak was not "chilled."

The Wilsons’ Response:
Government officials disclosing Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA operative in direct retaliation for Joe Wilson's speech is a violation of his First Amendment rights. The officials named in the suit pro-actively engaged in an effort to punish Joe Wilson for telling the public the truth about the Bush administration's justification for going to war with Iraq.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Wilsons' opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss is due on January 16, 2007. Then, the defendants' will have the opportunity to file reply briefs by February 15, 2007. Sometime thereafter, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates will schedule an oral argument, during which the judge has the chance to question the lawyers about their arguments. A decision will be expected sometime in the spring, but it is likely that the judge's decision will then be appealed.

[CutePuppy]

.... how long can Joe and Valerie keep their fundraising machine going now that it's too obvious to ignore that their lawsuit is a fraud??

How long did it take Wilson / Kerry to take down the restorehonesty.com after his NYT article lies were exposed?

Unfortunately, they'll be milking it for as long as it works, just like Democrats do with all of their other schemes like:

taking from the "rich", giving to the "poor"
speaking "truth" to "power"
"universal" education, healthcare, everything
"environment" is "sacred" and mustn't be changed, evolution stops right here and now, or rolled back to some arbitrary date in the past and frozen solid
"all animals are equal..."
etc. etc.

Democrat Party is a just a quilt of different eclectic cults, it doesn't look pretty or makes sense from outside, but it keeps warm sufficient number of people before it suffocates them.