NYS: Fitzgerald's Cloud, by Mark Steyn

New York Sun ^ | March 12, 2007 | MARK STEYN

[colorado tanker]

That is not what the piece in the WSJ written by two of the people involved in that evidence indicated.

[lugsoul]

Well, when I make statements about the court record, I base them on the court record, not the WSJ.

[colorado tanker]

So, you were present in the courtroom or have access to the transcript?

[lugsoul]

No, but I have access to the briefs and the order. You do, too.

[colorado tanker]

I can't find the WSJ piece online, but it was written by counsel involved in the case whose names I recognized. I have a hard time believing they misrepresented their case since that issue among others will be going up on appeal, but I suppose that's possible.

I do think this was essentially a political prosecution once it was known no crime was committed by the leak, so I hope Libby gets off the hook by appeal or pardon.

[metesky]

Why did the judge allow the proceedings to go on if he too knew what Fitzgerald knew?

IIRC, Judge Walton was put up for the SCOTUS by Billy Jeff Blythe and shot down by the Republicans. IIRC.

[lugsoul]

Are you saying that Libby's counsel wrote it? They were the only ones who presented it to the court. I have a hard time believing his lawyers wrote a piece arguing their position in the WSJ.

I'm not really concerned with what they said and whether it is an accurate representation of the issue presented to the court - the most accurate representation is what was actually presented to the court. And what was actually presented to the court was based primarily on studies on eyewitness testimony, which is a bit different than the question of whether one will remember multiple conversations, or will continue to 'forget' them even after they are reminded of them by another source.

It is extremely odd to me how a group of folks who pillory the media will rely on media sources when it suits their purposes.

[lugsoul]

You do not remember correctly. That is just the kind of false rumor that gets repeated ad nauseum where anything related to this case is concerned.

[colorado tanker]

No, that's not what I said. I said they were lawyers who were involved in the expert evidence issue, as witnesses as I recall, but since I don't have an online subscription, I can't give you an exact quote. You don't have a transcript, so you don't know what was in the offer of proof, either. It will have to be sorted out by the appellate court.

If what you've read are the trial court orders and the parties briefs you'll likely believe the judge got all the calls right, because you have an incomplete record.

I have never "pilloried" the WSJ editorial page, on the contrary I have said I think it has replaced the NYT op/ed pages as the premier forum in the country, where the really interesting stuff is printed.

[hinckley buzzard]

The judge had a very narrow view of relevance. If an appellate court takes a broader view there could be a reversal.

Very big "IF". All I know about this stuff is what I see, and what I see is time after time, judges and lawyers covering for each other. My bet is that appeal will be futile, and Bush will ignore the pardon route, and Libby will be screwed.

jmo.

Oh yeah-- and Nifong still walks.

[Christopher Lincoln]

I fear that there may not be any justice to be had, for a reason that hasn't had enough attention: Libby's own lawyers, as much as anybody, got him convicted. How did that happen? Ted Wells (let me focus on him) is not an idiot, and I don't believe he consciously set out out to lose the case; but being a liberal, he was blinded by his own prejudice against the administration and therefore against his client. He could not argue any defense except a bad memory (thus conceding, at least by silence, that what Libby said was factually false) because the liberal view of things would allow no other defense.

This happens; lawyers often represent people they don't like. But a good lawyer rises above his prejudice, he doesn't let it control him; and an honest lawyer, if he can't rise above it, doesn't take the case.