Feb 06 2007
Fitz’s Folly VIII
Fitz-Magoo is the uber-geek of Lawyers. He reminds me of Ken Starr who’s precision with the law fell flat with the general population – simply because life is not cut and dry and lived from a set of guidelines. People obsessed with the law forget its purpose, which is to arbitrate disputes and put certain behavior clearly off limits (i.e., murder). But there are gray areas where the law is meant to guide, not be used as a pummel. It is not perjury for a woman to lie about her age – it just isn’t. Unless her age is key to some case, which would be interesting but highly doubtful. But in any event the innocent white lie, the desire to hide secrets, etc is not illegal and is, in fact, a constitutional right. Not in the strange and black and white world of Fitz and his Fitzmas Elves. So this week Fitzgerald does the dumbest thing on the earth, he starts punishing the jurors!
Jurors appeared intrigued when they were told they’d be hearing audiotape of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s grand jury testimony and were handed transcripts so they could follow along.
Several mouths dropped, however, when they were told the tapes ran about nine hours long.
…
Tuesday, he plans to put that to the test. Jurors heard 90 minutes of testimony Monday and Fitzgerald has set aside all of Tuesday for jurors to listen to tapes and follow along in their books and on a big-screen transcript.
In a case which is either misremembering or an irrelevant attempt to cover up how Libby knew about Plame (because it was legal for Libby to know about Plame – the issue was exposing his knowledge to the media) the jurors expect to have the case on the case. The BDS driven media is all shocked VP Cheney talked to his staff. Oh the Horror of it all! The jurors must be wondering about abuse of power – not from the White House but by Fitz. Firtzgerald’s witnesses all came up and said they do not recall details, or developed details of recollection over the past 3 years. They have all missed key meetings and discussions and has to correct their testimony under oath. The jurors will begin to see Fitzgerald as what he is, an out of control person with an obsession and too much power to act on it. Get over it Fitz – nobody told you the complete and accurate truth! Stop punishing the jurors.
Well, the circle is bigger than just Fitz-Magoo!
I think most Americans felt the old days of lynching victims was behind us. But the pedestal that broke? The one lawyers were standing on. Seems to have given way to watching them as sharks. And, sighting them? Soon, we’ll have signs up that say “STAY OUT OF THE WATER!”
On the other hand? There’s a reason the great trial lawyers, like Gerry Spence and Theodore Wells, are considered gods! They’ve got these gifts with oration, that positively rivets the hearts and minds of men.
I think Wells has been very dynamic. In every move, so far, inside the court room, where Fitz works his smoke and mirrors, Wells still takes good aim. While, it seems to me, that Fitz gets saved with every fumble. Because the judge, as referee, suffers a bit from Judge Ito disease.
In other words? What’s the price of loving the limelight? So many people think that Walton, by being obtuse with his rulings, was being “fair.” Glad I’m not a juror! I’d sure be angry at a judge that told me a long trial suddenly grew longer over the weekend! After all. The superbowl came and went. And, those expensive seat holders stayed through the rain. But there was a definite conclusion!
Still don’t know about this trial, though?
As if you can fool most of the people into believing the press “didn’t know” about the “flame” in plame, staying mostly inside an insider’s game.”
Reminds me so much of hillary’s surprise to learn about Monica. And, ya know? She was in the building at the same time her husband’s pants “fell” around his ankles. Can a marriage be so bad that a wife wouldn’t know her husband was diddling in the next room?
No. I wouldn’t be bowled over like a feather at the news.
Walton’s made miss-steps. What’s his best gambit? If he can get away with it? Tie Libby up in the court system for years and years. With even more litigation. So he has to shut up until things are “a-joo-di-cated.” Oh, well. Besides using his VETO PEN against this congress, Bush could give a big speech, pardoning Libby; should the DC in-crowd be so stupid as to “convict.” Yes. All wars are sad things. Bush doesn’t have to be on the losing side of it, though.
And, yes. I’m fully aware that a wonderful jury in Santa Barbara did not convict Michael Jackson for “being queer.” Instead? A grandmotherly type was made foreman. And, when it came to finding evidence; had the jurors search for it high and low. It wasn’t there. Snedden lost.
Libby: Screwed, glued and tattooed
Strataspheristas continue to deride Fitzgerald’s case against I. Lewis Libby, but Fitzgerald has moved swiftly and efficiently through his presentation of the evidence and witnesses he has arrayed against Libby. This is no OJ trial with prosecutors unprepared to present their case; this has been lazer-like focus on what is needed to prove the case for lying, perjury and obstruction of justice.
Yesterday, the jurors got to listen in as Libby lied to Grand Jurors under oath:
Fitzgerald repeatedly asked Libby if in June 2003 he had discussed Wilson’s wife and her CIA employment with either Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman or CIA senior official Robert Grenier. Libby repeatedly told Fitzgerald that he had not spoken with either man about Wilson’s wife. Yet both Grossman and Grenier have testified in this trial that Libby demanded information from them about the Wilson mission and that they informed him the ambassador’s wife was a CIA employee.
Over and over, Libby told the grand jury he could not remember any such conversations with Grossman or Grenier.
“Is that something you would remember?” Fitzgerald asked.
“I just don’t recall the conversation,” Libby replied, in a voice that dropped in volume.
This has been a critical point for Libby. His story is that at the time of the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer on July 14, 2003, he possessed no official or classified information about her. He has claimed that he had forgotten–totally–the one conversation he had with Cheney about her in early June 2003, and he has said that in July 2003 he had heard from reporters–mainly Tim Russert of Meet the Press–that there were rumors that Wilson’s wife was CIA. He has claimed it was as if he was learning about Valerie Wilson for the first time. Libby, according to his own account, then merely shared these rumors with other reporters.
But Libby acknowledged under oath that he had discussed Wilson’s wife with his boss sometime before June 12, and that the vice president told Libby that he had obtained information on this ex-diplomat and mentioned that the former ambassador’s wife worked at the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division, a unit within the agency’s clandestine directorate.
Libby’s goose is cooking, and it’ll take more than Ted Wells to pull his fat out of the fire.
Oh Yeah? We’ll just see.
And this from macsmind.com:
snip”The fact of the matter as we all know is that Valerie Plame along with her cohorts in the agency to embarrass the administration by exposing a forgery that they in fact had a hand in performing. The motive? Yes, to stop the push into Iraq, but more insidious it was also to hide an elaborate yellow cake proliferation operation that had been ongoing since the early 90s.
It might have all slid under the radar if Joe Wilson’s ego and big mouth hadn’t met up with “help†to get his tale published. It was THAT article which triggered the expected push back of the Administration and rightly so. Wilson was telling lies and any administration would have gone after that with everything they had.
This case isn’t such much a travesty – as it is for Libby – as it is a dangerous precedent for future detection of illegal activity within the bowels of the agency. This is what they do when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar – they are masters at it.”
Answer me this: WHY WAS JOE WILSON IN NIGER IN 1999? AND WHAT EXACTLY DID HIS “COMPANY” DO?
I dare ya…
I think the only thing that could hurt Libby thus far is the D.C. Jury Pool.
Deborah Bonds testimony was very helpful, as well as all the others except Ari’s.
It’s certainly entertaining!
Nah, Libby’s got the best show in town, going on, now. And, it’s the press that’s screwed. How screwed? They can’t draw in subscribers. They’ve diddled their own audience. And, it shows up, economically. (Did you know the NY Times lost $638-million-dollars last year? And, whatever channel ran the superbowl? That was their take for the 4-hours-in-the rain. Where the show was LIVE. And, people really cared about the outcome.) People on BOTH SIDES! For da’ bears. And, for da’colts. Only thing was you had to root for just one.
Here? We know for a FACT that all this mishigas did not elect Kerry. (Though an upcoming witness, to fall into the Libby trial’s witness box, went on record to say that the Wilson “charges” will give Kerry 15% points. Um. Kerry lost. Maybe, he got that extra 15% points? But Dan Rather boosted Bush’s score by an additional 4-million-voters; who decided to go to the polls; when they could’a just stayed at home and sat on their hands.)
Plus, I gotta tell ya. I still can’t figure out why Fitzgerald gave his presser. And, why he said in court, to the judge, on Thursday, that he’d be ready to wrap up at the end of TODAY. Then? He files for permission to add on 8 hours of GJ testimony. The judge “accepts.”
Is this to blame Libby, should the need arise, ahead, for everyone to bring cots?
It seems even though we’ve only seen the prosecution’s case, Libby’s lawyer, WELLS, is a powerhouse in the courtroom. (Or so wrote the Maine Blogger, just today.) The subject? Arguing for Sanger of the NY Times to sit.
Will the judge aquit?
What makes anyone think Walton is short of cards? Or that Libby is running out of money? Or that Bush can’t rectify juror error?
He was asked by the CIA to go (admittedly, his wife suggested him for the trip).
A better question:
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING???????????????????
And if you’re going to be quoting from “macsmind” you better get back on your meds.
i’d panic sooner if i were quoting soothsayer.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
American Bar Association
Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness’s grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.
What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
None. The target’s only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.
SBD
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
American Bar Association
Are there any other exceptions to grand jury secrecy?
At one time, the defendant in a criminal trial was never given access to the grand jury testimony that resulted in the indictment. By the 1980s, in most jurisdictions, if a witness who testified before the grand jury was called to testify at the eventual trial, the defendant was given a copy of that witness’s grand jury testimony to use for possible impeachment. Some jurisdictions also give the defendant a list of everyone who testified before the grand jury, and several give the defendant a full transcript of all relevant grand jury testimony. In the federal system, no such list is provided, and the grand jury transcripts of only those persons who testify on behalf of the prosecutor at trial are given to the defendant.
What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury, or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence?
None. The target’s only redress is to challenge the evidence at trial. One of the reasons a witness may assert the Fifth Amendment is that he or she does not know if the prosecutor has presented witnesses who have lied. The witness cannot risk testifying contrary to those witnesses, for fear of being charged with perjury if the prosecutor does not believe his or her testimony.
SBD
I have a few questions, too.
The US Constitution separates out 3 equal but separate powers of government.
Judges have discretion. And, it seems to me the local courts have been “gifted” by the Supremes with full “DISCRETIONARY POWERS.” (Ah. Up to a point. And, I get to that in a minute.)
Turns out in any particular court house judges could apply convictions “willy nilly.” So people were “being sent up” for different time lengths. For the same types of crimes. AND, IT WAS CONGRESS WHO THEN ORDERED SENTENCING GUIDE LINES?
Now that’s a big bite out of “judicial discretion.” So where did it come from?
And, why does the Appeals process only look for certain errors, when you can have a whole trial bent out of shape by “judicial discretion?”
But the mistakes have to be on “substance.” Like a judge “thwarting” a defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Maranda came down that pike.)
While Martha Stewart was out of luck. Because her own attorney sent miss-cues to the jury. (By beating up on the government’s young witness). When a much kinder approach would have been more fruitful. Martha, left with choices, decided to pick her wallet up off the table.
And, these days? Does a jail sentence mean all that much? People used to live in fear of exposure.
Were prosecutors always as dishonest as Fitzgerald? Doing anything they could do to convict an innocent person?
And, if you had to guess. Now that Americans are becoming aware of the dishonesty inherent in a persecutor bearing down on a witness; sans a judge. Or even his own attorney in the room. Do you see changes, ahead? And, if so? Do they eminate out of the Supremes? Or with the Congress swoop in and take another bite?
While the President’s table holds cabinet chairs for staff … where, when the appointed head goes to the agency, “he leaves for the reservation?”
Or, will the Fitz-Fiasco go the way of Elliot Ness? Wasn’t Elliot Ness clean as a whistle?
I know. People have to go to law school to answer this stuff. And, John Houseman is dead. What was the name of that law school show?
“I know. People have to go to law school to answer this stuff. And, John Houseman is dead. What was the name of that law school show?”
here ya go Carol –
from Wiki:
The Paper Chase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paper_Chase
John Houseman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houseman
Here are a few paragraphs from an article written by Paul Craig Roberts that correctly describes our Criminal Justice System.
America’s Injustice System Is Criminal
by Paul Craig Roberts
The criminal justice (sic) system today consists of a process whereby a defendant is coerced into admitting to a crime in order to escape more severe punishment for maintaining his innocence. Many of the crimes for which people are imprisoned never occurred. They are made up crimes created by the process of negotiation to close a case.
Prosecutors have lost sight of innocence and guilt. What we have today is a conveyor belt that convicts almost everyone who is charged. Every defense attorney knows that today prosecutors can purchase testimony against a defendant by paying a “witness” with money, dropped charges, or reduced time to testify against the defendant. Many prosecutors become highly annoyed at any disruption of the plea bargain conviction process. A defendant that incurs the prosecutor’s ire is certain to be framed on far more serious charges than a negotiated plea.
Going to trial is no guarantee that an innocent person will be acquitted. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence and suborn perjury. Generally, jurors trust prosecutors and are unaware of their inventory of dirty tricks. Few jurors can tell the difference between bogus evidence and real evidence. For example, psychologists and criminologists have established beyond all doubt that eye-witnesses are wrong 50% of the time. Yet, jurors usually believe eye-witnesses unless they think the witness has it in for the defendant and is lying.
There is no institution in America that is a greater failure than the criminal justice (sic) system. The system can do nothing but fail, because the search for truth and justice plays no part in the system. The prosecutor’s career depends on his conviction rate, not on discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused.
What kind of people are we when we exercise no oversight over a criminal justice (sic) system that destroys the lives of innocent people with lies?
SBD
Truly ominous news for Scooter.
His attorneys hve decided they do NOT want Scooter to testify at Libby’s trial for lying, perjury and obstruction of justice. Just last December, Ted Wells was telling anyone who would listen that he intended to let Libby explain from the witness stand why he forgot that his boss, VP Dick Cheney, told him that Valerie Plame WIlson ws a CIA employee. And, if that were no0t enough Wells boasted, he was going to call the Vice President, too.
Now – maybe not so much.
After having listened to Libby’s Grand Jury testimony for two days, observing the jury, and faced with the prospect of Libby on the stand publicly and under the guns of Patrick Fitzgerald’s cross-examination, it now appears neither Libby nor the VP have the intestinal fortitude to take the stand under oath.
Since the judge has already rule dout Libby’s so-called memory expert, its hard to imagine what kind of case the defense is going to put on.
They may just hunker down and sit on their hands; this trial may be over.
Yes, wait and see indeed.
Since they have managed to impeech to various degrees the testimony of every prosecution witness thus far, perhaps they feel they don’t “need” to put him on the stand.
Unrelated to the trial, but interesting to the storyline is this from Byron York:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRkZDFjMzU2NTc1NTYyM2Q0MWVmMGI4MGNmYzFlNDY=
2 pieces of evidence in this trial (from CIA) are memos— the dates on which appear to indicate that Plame’s memo suggesting her husband for the Niger trip, was sent “before” Cheney was briefed on the yellowcake sale report. That this entire thing was already in motion prior to VP ever being briefed on the supposed yellowcake contract. Hmmmm.
Interestingly enough, since almost every witness to testify thus far is a former or present employee of the Bush Administration, I suppose it would indeed be pretty easy to blanket impeech [sic] their testimony by noting that each and every member of the Bush Administration is a lying sumbitch.
However, since I. Lewis Libby also falls into the pathological liar category of former Bush employees, I don’t know that this is particularly useful in defending against charges of lying and perjury.
If Wells does choose not to call Libby or Cheney – it should be a very short defense case – and then on to closing arguments. For those not familiar with closing protocol, closing arguments are weighted in favor of the prosecution. Prosecution and defense receive equal time for their presentations (in this case at least an hour I would guess) but the prosecution may reserve a portion of its time, and the prosecution gets to go first and last, with the defense in between.
The prosecutor always gets the last word to the jury (except for the jury instruction from the judge).