Feb 13 2007

No Fitzmas All Around

Published by at 3:37 pm under All General Discussions

Ugh, looks like the Libby is going to be a bust for left and right. No Cheney, no Libby, no Mitchell, no Joe Wilson, no Valerie Plame, no Kristof…. Nothing. Libby is going to (wisely) rest his case because his team has more than established sufficient doubt to, at a minimu, hang even a DC jury. With inclimate weather here in DC (aka Global Warming) I expect a delay in the trial tomorrow with the last witnesses on Thursday and closing arguments Friday, possibly into Monday. – Make that closing arguements on Tuesday – The Plame Game is about to end. Can we handle the withdrawal? (Yes!) Keep up with the Plamiacs here.

Update: Well, maybe there is a little something under the Plame tree, since Team Libby is not done impeaching Russert:

Wells. Second piece of evidence relates also to benefits received by Russert and would be form of impeachment testimony. Being able to testify in setting where lawyer was present. On cross, in attempt to explore Russert’s understanding if he went before GJ, to my complete shock, Russert said he had no knowledge.

Walton There’s no evidence he’s ever done criminal law.

Wells. I’m going to show you three video tapes where it’s clear he’s aware of it. “So you understand that normal procedure, they’re not permitted to have lawyers in room.” I’ve given govt transcripts of three different appearances where he acknowledges that witnesses before GJ don’t have their lawyer. Discussing GJ testimony of Clinton. [why am I not surprised we were going to Clinton?] He askes why he doesn’t go before GJ.Resisting a subpoena are words he can understand better. Clinton is saying “can we not testify on video” rather than having to march before GJ without his lawyers. In other portions of the interview, why she won’t answer that question. She says it’s one of may questions because it’s before a GJ w/o a lawyer. These go right to the heart of a benefit.

Many people picked up on the clear fib by Lawyer Russert that he was not aware of the benefit of legal council during questioning outside the Grand Jury. Now they have him on tape discussing this benefit. Best Timmie can do is plead “I did not remember that”, to which he bolsters Libby’s case. Touche’!

14 responses so far

14 Responses to “No Fitzmas All Around”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    This is the way the defense case ends . . . not with a bang . . . but with a whimper . . . intimidated into not calling either Libby or his mentor, multiple-DUI-convicted Dick Cheney.

    Mr. Wells best chance to protect his client will come in the formulation of jury instructions; that process should take all day Thursday; the infighting should be fierce.

    In closing, Mr. Wells will be dancing on a very snug dance floor, as his failure to call Libby will limit the scope of his final argument to the jury. Look for Fitzgerald to be very measured in the first section of his closing; after Wells has had his say for the defense, you can look for Fitzgerald to finish with a bang. Fitzgerald likes extended metaphors, e.g., his likening of obstruction of justice to throwing sand in the eye of the umpire in a baseball game. I’m sure he’ll have something special up his sleeve.

  2. AJStrata says:


    Crow will be served promptly on Wednesday, when the verdict comes in. Bring your appetite!

  3. secureourfuture says:

    Hey look its Soothie — The Rosie O’Donnell of AJ’s blog.

    Nobody else wants him, so here he is, telling us about his views and opinions that nobody else seems to agree with.

    He creates quite a bit of hot air, shakes his behind around, and then tells you about his qualifications in order to assert his point.

    Get back under the muck cockroach, before you get squished. There are elephants in the area.

  4. ivehadit says:

    Where’s she gettin’ this gig about DUI and Cheney? Say what?

  5. Retired Spook says:

    Crow will be served promptly on Wednesday, when the verdict comes in. Bring your appetite!

    Sooth, does Arthur Bryant’s serve crow, maybe as an appetizer?

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Cheney got popped for two DUI’s back in Wyoming. That pacemaker deal he’s got now jams Breathalyzers, so he doesn’t have to worry about it any more.


    I don’t know about them serving crow, but I’ve seen a few outside the joint on occasion.

  7. herzhonour says:

    Interesting how another persons history gets used as
    a weapon when there is no clear defense otherwise.
    Yes we nave no pacemakers today.

    This should have never become more than it was
    originally, gossip being spread around The Hill
    by everyone.
    Cheap shots at a high price to the

  8. herzhonour says:

    Oh and what kind of crust is being offered
    with the crow pie?

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    Again Sooth brings points not germane to the trial at hand to debunk the trial. This is a tactic he has used before. It seems he likes playing the hand with a busted flush.

  10. Carol_Herman says:

    Just keeping to the script that the trial is about nothing, so what?

    You needed Cheney?

    You needed Libby? Hasn’t anyone read the Constitution, yet? Fitz was supposed to prove his charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It’s not over, yet. Wells is still “presenting.” It’s Waltoon that’s holding up the works. More like a guy who shares his tailor with Kofi Anan.

    And, I’ll wait and see how Wells closes to the jury.

    And, see, too, how Fitz sews a closing seam that doesn’t look like a bunch of rags.

    The DC jury convicts? On auto pilot, no less? Then how come when Waltoon read the jurors’ questions to Novak, it was the JUROR who asked “who was your second source,” (after Armitage). And, Novak answered HARLOW.

    You think this is over, now?

    One of Novak’s major complaints was that Fitz was interferring with his livelihood. Stopping him from writing about what he knew, now going on three years.

    Books will explode out of this trial like a zit spritzed from a “hot seat.”

    Russert? He’ll eventually sit at Dan RaTHer’s table. With or without his Andrea Mitchell playing his Mary Mapes.

    And, IMUS. You think IMUS is convinced Russert’s a truth-teller? Or a tooth-teller, without a tooth fairy. In a world full of “fay-ga-lach” no less.

  11. BarbaraS says:

    A special prosecutor is something dreamed up by the democrats as a stick to beat the republicans. They regretted establishing this during the Clinton debacle and demanded that it be abolished when it was beating their idol. But everytime they think they have the goods on the republicans they demand a special prosecutor again. I wonder when the republicans are going to wake up and smell the coffee. There is no sense in giving anyone this much power. Comey appointed this jerk on the recommendation of Chuck Shumer. Also Fitzgerald is a close friend of Comey’s. That alone would tell you how unfair this investigation would be. This whole thing has been a conspiracy all right. A conspiracy to bring down the President in war time a la Nixon. I would say the DOJ should investigate Fitzgerald and the cabal in state, cia and who knows what other department but I don’t think that investigation would be above board either. This trial has driven home to the American public that the justice system is broken and needs to be fixed. And with the scum we have in Washington good luck.

  12. ivehadit says:

    And let’s not forget Dion, Shwartz, Fine and Caproni…which the site pests have yet to answer why these names are “important”.

  13. Soothsayer says:

    During his opening statement, Ted Wells promised the jury he would present them with “evidence and testimony” that would prove that I. Lewis Libby did not intend to lie to the Grand Jury.

    Now that he has declined to call Libby – where might such “testimony” come from. If anyone else attempted to tstify to Libby’s intent – it would be hearsay – and inadmissible.

    Fitzgerald will hammer on this omission during his closing:

    Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, the defense promised you it would present testimony showing Scooter Libby did not intend to lie to the Grand Jury. Where is this testimony?

  14. wiley says:

    All the reporting and transcripts clearly show that Libby did not intentionally lie. He was cooperative throughout this whole ordeal. Faulty memory? perhaps. Lying reporters with faulty memories? no doubt. Deceiptful prosecutor with an agenda? Of course. What a sham.