Posted on 02/14/2007 5:53:43 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges rested their case today, but not before suffering a series of defeats in legal rulings by the presiding judge......
.........Judge Walton ruled against Mr. Wells on two motions seeking Mr. Russert’s recall. Mr. Russert, in his testimony, denied that he had told Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson as Mr. Libby had claimed....
.....But at the time Mr. Russert had already discussed his conversation with Mr. Libby with an F.B.I. agent and Mr. Wells asserted that Mr. Fitzgerald agreed not to raise that matter because it would have exposed Mr. Russert as a hypocrite and undercut his television statements that he was standing up for the First Amendment and reporters’ rights.
Judge Walton took the unusual step of questioning Mr. Russert’s lawyer, Lee Levine. Mr. Levine said he never discussed with Mr. Russert the agreement with the prosecutor not to raise the conversation with the F.B.I. agent. Judge Walton then the issue ruled it was irrelevant to the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
what do you make about the behavior of the jurors with these valentines day shirts? is this a trial, or a circus?
This stinks. I think maybe Bush made a mistake appointing this guy to the court.
He had an interesting youth, being involved in gangs and violence before he straightened out, but when he straightened out he seems to have drunk the liberal koolaid.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=319
It all boils down to closing arguments now. I'm pretty stunned by some of the rulings of this judge. Russert filed a false affidavit, and that is just OK with Judge Walton, at least that is my impression by his comments at the end of the day. I find this most distressing.
Back to grammer and spelling school for you.
The Juror T-Shirts did not look like a good sign. United Jurors would tend to make a quick decision. The prosecutor got a lot of breaks from this Judge and Libby may pick up the tab for that.
I was reading about that T-shirt gag...and surprising to ME..I felt creeped out by it for some reason.
Did you see the part in this story that said that the Judge said that the defense could tell the jury that Libby "had a lot on his plate"...but nothing more than Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson???
That doesn't even make sense or sound close to being "fair". My goodness...I am just a stay at home grandmother...but I know better than that. He is the Chief of Staff of the VPOTUS at a time of WAR...and the jury isn't supposed to know that he had a LOT to worry about besides some deadbeat diplomat and his society loving wife??
I mean, when I have served on juries - they dictated a dress code. obviously these jurors (all but one) have assembled into some kind of a "group" to agree to wear these shirts. what is going on here?
What's the deal with the t-shirts?
Juries in the hands of such Judges can not be considered to be fully informed, nor impartial. For the partiality of the Judge, biased against the defendant, shines through to the Jury.
that's what we are all wondering, it seems very inappropriate, regardless of whether its a signal that they are for conviction or acquittal.
I mean, I hadn't heard about the jurors wearing t-shirts. What did the shirts say?
the article describes them - valentine's day themed.
is it a sign that they think the trial is a joke?
not quite just the closings. First the prosecutor gets another chance to call witnesses to rebut the witnesses the defense just called. Then prosecutor close, defense close and prosecutor gets to rebut again. Next the judge gives the jury its instructions and defines the law(s) that is alleged to have been broken. Next is a verdict which has to be unanimous for either the prosecutor or for Libby.
I don't know, but if Libby loses their behavior should be brought up on the appeal.
There is a moral in this: do not screw with the judge.
Libby's defense led the judge to believe, apparently several times, that Libby would be testifying in the case. That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case. Now Libby's not testifying after all, and the judge is angry that he has been deceived. So he is not giving the defense any benefits of the doubt now.
The defense here seems to have not put up a full battle. Not calling Cheney to testify is telling.
Not putting Libby up after you told the court he was testifying: these things really weaken the case and damage credibility.
So, why are they doing that? I assume these are well-connected and savvy lawyers. Why are they not pulling those above them into court to save their man?
My speculation is that it is because the Libby team knows the fix is in. If Libby doesn't haul them in and embarrass them, and doesn't take the stand and expose himself to damaging his bosses, he will probably be convicted. But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will.
Of course I have no idea this is so, but it seems the logical conclusion given the defense's surprising behavior. They're essentially laying down and letting themselves be killed. Which tells me that they know that he's got a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Do you think they have a signed pardon?
He could end up doing time under this theory.
Yes, Federal court here was coat and ties.
No more witnesses in this case, Fitzy declined to put up anymore. Closing arguments are set for Tuesday. Somewhere between now and then, I would presume that Team Libby would do whatever it is (Rule 29) to dismiss some/all charges; however, given the way the Judge has ruled in this case, I doubt any charges would be dropped. I simply will never understand why Team Libby was not allowed to call Andrea Mithcell, or why the judge would NOT allow him to recall Russert on his blatant lie to the court (I didn't know you couldn't bring a lawyer into a grand jury). Russert is scum in this and he has NO credibility left in my mind; well...to be honest, I have thought him to be scum for quite some time anyway.
a more likely scenerio is the defense was underwhelmed by the prosecutor's case and decided to put a few witnesses on and shut up hoping the jury understands the prosecutor's case was week. In other words, they belive they were sucessful in undermining the case during cross examination and the use of a couple of witnesses. Shut up and close the case quickly.
Nice try, but that was Russert's signature on the false affidavit, wasn't it? He can't squirm out of that one so easily... The judge in this case has embarassed himself time after time after time during this trial...
Umm....it's spelled grammar.
Go stand in the corner.
:)
JOM has been ripping apart his reports day by day. He is an idiot.
bizarre.
Unless you mean it's like a place where you can haggle for price on trinkets. In that case I apologize.
JOM?
Apparently the judge was guilty of not paying proper attention - which seems to have been a problem since the beginning. If I have interpreted it correctly, my understanding (from reading JustOneMinute) is that one of the defense attorneys has pointed out to the judge that the defense has always explicitly left open the possibility that Libby might not testify, and that the judge has backed down from his earlier mistaken claim that they did not do so (although apparently without reversing the judge's own rulings based on that mistake).
The ruling makes sense. There was no evidence submitted at trial that other things were more important to Libby than the Plame thing.
That's the problem with not testifying -- nobody else can introduce YOUR state of mind, and if you don't, you can't argue it in summation.
Thanks.
Was she donning a veil?
Or gram cracker school.
According to John Podhoretz in The Astonishing 'Stipulation', Libby's lawyers were able to get exactly that added to the trial record. Take a look at that article - the (sanitized) list of topics that Libby was briefed on during only a single day is breathtaking, and no matter how dense any individual juror may be, it does not take much imagination to 'get the point'...
I don't see what your comments have to do with the issue in question.
I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the having the defendant testify or not, whether in the defense all along or brought about by what happened in court is none of the judge's concern. I would think that if he punished the defense because he thought he was strung along would be grounds for appeal.
Does anyone recognize that these are Americans? I don't.
I am surprised. I don't know if they are making a statement or not. But it is inappropriate for the well being of the accused or the opposing side. These jurors as well as everyone in the courtroom should realize what the jurors actions may say. And with our laws today that could be many matters of interpretation which is grossly unfair.
Hey, this is a DC Judge and Jury... Fitzmas indeed. May have to wait for the appeal or the pardon.
In terms of Libby's state of mind, I certainly have heard attorneys argue in closing about explanations and motives for their client's behavior, without the defendant having testified. I get the impression that the judge here so constrained the defense case that Wells now believes he has strong appeal grounds. I also think Libby is going to be convicted by this jury.
In terms of an appeal, take the judge's ruling that classified material would not be allowed in to show what Libby was dealing with at the time. The judge seems to have made comments that he earlier leaned toward letting that in because the judge thought Libby would testify. If Libby has a right not to testify, it seems to me the defense has the right to introduce evidence that indicates Libby just forgot some of this Plame stuff. After all, that is the central issue in the case.
It's kind of like you're accused of lying about a conversation you had with someone in the lobby of an office building, and the jury isn't allowed to hear that the conversation was one of a hundred you had in the WTC lobby on 9-11 right after the planes hit and during the evacuation. It's awfully relevant.
What's lost in the big picture is that there was a duty to expose them. She sent her unqualified husband to Niger, without the VP's knowledge. He came back and backed up, with his verbal report, that saddam was trying to buy uranium. He then went to the nyt (where else?) and lied to hurt the war effort!
Two questions:
(1) Why no written report to the CIA?
(2)Why was there no non-disclosure agreement signed by Wilson?
It boils down to Russert said, Libby said. That is it. Nothing more. The two disagree under oath and it will turn on believability of Russert.
> But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will."
The President that can't find a Veto Pen might not be able to find his Pardon Pen either.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjRhMWM5MzA0ZTU5M2Y3MTA3NWIwMTE2MjBlOGRkMWE=
The Astonishing 'Stipulation' [John Podhoretz]
The Libby defense ended its case today in Washington, which means that there will be all kinds of instructions from the judge tomorrow and then closing statements next Tuesday. One fascinating detail from the last few minutes. Libby's team argued for weeks for the right to put the people who presented Libby with the Morning Intelligence Brief every day on the stand — to show how many big and frightening issues he had to deal with during the course of every day that might fog the details of his memory of or focus on Joe Wilson and his wife.
In the end, the briefers were not called. Instead, Libby's lawyers read a "stipulation" into the record to indicate what they were talking about. The leftist site firedoglake.com is liveblogging the trial, and has done a dirty transcription of the stipulation.
It's an astounding document. It's hard to imagine how anyone could keep anything straight given the sheer blizzard of information contained in Libby's briefing. The stipulation focuses on one single day, June 14, 2003, and during the briefing, according to firedoglake, "Libby was presented with info concerning:
"Bomb diffused...explosions...E African extremist network...Info on possible AQ attack in US...conncern about specific vulnerability to terrorist attack...Proposed ME plan, Israeli military action...Country's security affecting AQ...International org's position concerning country's nuke program...Iraq's porous borders present security threat...Demonstrations in Iran turn violent...Israeli offer of cease fire to Palestineans...Memorandum assessing Iranian' pres' view on terrorism...Problems in leadership in PLO...Foreign media analysis concerning Egyptian treatment on Paletinian conflict...Media, opposition of Israeli public to attacks...Info on Egypt process ME peace process ...Palestinian groups and Israel...Constraints on Israeli military...Saddam Hussein published on website...Memo in Iraqi WMD...Housing shortage in Iraq...Info on 1920 Mesopotamia and insurgency on moden-day Iraq...Potential effect of improved governance in Iraq..."
Wait, that's not all. There was also a terror threat list for that one day:
1) Concern over possible suicide info to hujack airplane by AQ linked group
2) Concern about terrorists providing support for business transaction by AQ
3) Potential suicide attacks against US forces in IRaq
4) Potential terrorist attacks against Americans in Karbala by unspecified means
5) Potential attack in Ethiopia
6) Potential attack in Nairobi
7) Potential attack in Kabul Afghanistan and Pakistan [sorry, lost the countiing here]
8) Concern over surveillance in Beirut and attack against embassy vehicles
9) Unspecified terror attack against unspecified
10) Potential attack in Budapest
11) Potential attacks in Kabul by unspecified group
12) Video taping in US university
13) Turkish and Pakistani extremists.
Welcome to the life of a senior White House staffer working on the most crucial issues of our time. Good morning, Scooter.
Did you see the part in this story that said that the Judge said that the defense could tell the jury that Libby "had a lot on his plate"...
See reply 47
>>That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case.<<
It shouldn't have been.
If the judge doesn't really think this is an easy ground for appeal, he's an idiot. How in the world can he instruct the jury to ignore the fact that the defendant didn't testify in his own behalf when he's not doing that?
Instead of reposting, I'm pretty sure here's the reason for wrapping up the case at this stage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784841/posts?page=116#116
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.