May 08 2006
Miller Response To Team Libby Is Weak
Tom Maguire has links to some response filings. I found the Miller/Bennet response to Team Libby’s filing against motions to quash weak. Which means Walton will probably side with Miller. But here it goes anyway. First off, Bennett naively admits the amount of information Miller is withholding is small, so there will never be any argument of burden:
Mr. Libby also contends, citing Nixon, that “‘analysis and possible transcription’ of much of the evidence sought (including reporters’ notes) ‘may take a significant period of time.'” (Response at 9, quoting Nixon). Nixon involved transcription of twenty lengthy audio tapes. 418 U.S. at 688. There is, by no stretch, anything close to this volume of material in Ms. Miller’s possession.
Well, if there is not much to produce a fair trial demands it should be produced and then debated in court. But it gets worse. Bennett then claims he will dictate what the defense needs – in violation of the constitution and the concept of law in America:
Mr. Libby further asserts that he “is clearly better situated than Ms. Miller’s counsel to determine which individuals [referenced in her notes, phone logs and calendar] are ‘pertinent to this case’ and what ‘context’ is useful to the defense.” (Response at 14). Mr. Libby cites no law in support of this proposition which, if implemented, would serve to grant defense counsel unchecked leeway to inspect any documents they seek via Rule 17(c).
Bennett got lazy or arrogant on this one. Yes, it is the law of the land a person may defend themselves, and that they are innocent until proven guilty. The case has been made for a limited amount of documentation to assert whether Miller heard of Plame prior to talking to Libby. Bennett does not deny this!
He also makes the startlingly baseless claim that it may have been Ms. Miller who mentioned Ms. Plame to him. (Response at 15). These contentions are unavailing. How can it possibly be maintained that Ms. Miller’s notes of discussions with persons other than Mr. Libby, regarding topics unrelated to the instant case, have any bearing on his, hers, or anyone’s recollection of the salient facts.
Simple. Ms Miller appeared to know the name Wilson before talking to Libby, and her notes may not reflect who told her, but who she talked to who possibly told her. Like one Marc Grossman. But there is more non-denial denial:
Mr. Libby suggests that he will use such information “combined with information already known to the defense” to allow him to “identify who, other than Mr. Libby, may have disclosed Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Ms. Miller . . . .” (Response at 14-15, emphasis added). Mr. Libby further maintains he will use such information “to contend that, contrary to the allegations in the indictment, it was Ms. Miller who raised this topic in her discussions with Mr. Libby –if the topic was raised at all.” (Response at 15, emphasis in original). To the extent Mr. Libby has specific information establishing the information he demands is relevant and admissible, it is incumbent upon him to present it to the Court now, in support of his subpoena. He makes no such attempt.
Emphasis in original. Notice what Bennett is saying is Team Libby did not PROVE Miller knew ahead of time. Not that she did not know. Walton will notice the distinction and may not be impressed. Bennett is grasping at straws because there is something to hide:
Mr. Libby maintains his subpoenas do not seek “entire files.” However, Ms. Miller’s notebooks are essentially “entire files,” containing all interviews that took place over several weeks. Similarly, her phone logs and calendar are essentially “entire files,” containing her appointments and contacts over a similar period of time.
So if Libby agrees in this case he want entire files they will hand them over? When a lawyer is left with arguing wether a one week calendar is a file or a one month calendar is a file, he is desperate. My six year old twins could come up with better arguments. Question is whether Walton will bite. Not sure.
I have to say…I am bit confused why all 3 of these outlets are vigorously unwilling to just comply…if their materials are not helpful –in their view– then why do they have a problem turning them over…like say, the WAPO is?
TS
If he gets the full unredacted calendar , it my for example document phone numbers or meets with yet to be identified CIA sources for example. One of many possibilities.
And, if Walton bites? BLACK judge. That’s another smear on the OJ stain. Why do people who are black let such stuff grow? Is there collective stupidity involved?
Ya know, I heard about the slave ships. But I never heard that africans were competing in building yachts.
In other words, they travel funny when they’re here. They get promoted, through the idealism let loose by civil rights. And, yet, the seeds that were dropped produced this crop?
Produced an entire army of lawyers who are sharks? Who infest our system of democracy? You’d think lawyers would be sharp enough to wonder about their credentials? But like haarvard, they take no notice.
Maybe, Walton doesn’t bite? But it’s still the Dreyfus trial writ large. And, that means that down the line when an Emil Zola comes along, the reputations of those who practice law comes into question.
Meanwhile, Miller’s been fired. And, there’s such a lock on silence. Even hollywood got weird. There are no bad-guy films showing evil muzzies. Books get twisted out of shape, so filmed stories fail.
And, we just get to watch.
What does it all mean?
And, why is Fitzgerald still successful doing the Rove Shuffle? He’s got material from that far back? To push Rove out of the White House? WHo does he think he is, Dan Rather?
I’m guessing the President isn’t making bolder moves, because for the dems, Fitzgerald is their credentialed Custer. And, last stands creat historical relics. It’s just a matter of time.
Any ideas on what Bush would do if Rove is indicted in the next few weeks? He lets us fume?
Or he gives a speech from the Oval Office detrimental to a part of government people hate anyway?
You think lawyers are sharp? Funny. I’m just a citizen whose recently had to show up twice for jury duty. So, I got to bring a book. And, sit in a room, with others so “condemned.” Me? No loss to wages. Just time away from my computer. But a good book, and hours to read, shouldn’t bend my nose so out of sorts. But it does.
No love lost when you hear the people whose names get called. So they can be marched into the different chambers. Resided on by the pompous. The lame. The stupid. And, the politically connected.
You’d be surprised how people feel who have real jobs! And, this happens to them! (My dentist, for one. The office was abuzz on his story. How he was called into a trial for a gang member … where he saw the neck tattoos. Even though the lawyers put the bum in a suit. THEN, he was asked to stand. Give his name. The name of his wife. His home address. And, tell the court what school his kid attended. Know how he got out of service? He said he thought the guy was guilty. So they tossed him from the room.) You got a better choice?
You want defense lawyers to have information where you can get intimidated? So what if the police come and take reports.
It’s good to know you can say out loud “you have confidence in the government.” Even when you don’t mean it.
A long time ago, a great Greek playwrite used this line. He said his hero spoke with his TONGUE. But his heart wasn’t in it. So you’re then not uttering a lie.
The law takes too long. If you think Libby can regain what he was forced to lose, you’re nuts. Though I think Libby will come out swinging. And, there ya go. He’s got the best lawyer in town. And, Wells is BLACK.
Maybe, the good ones just don’t become judges?