Well, folks, Team Libby is earning its $500 an hour fees. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_060412_Reply_Disclosure.pdf The latest filing is compelling. The defense argues it should see a number of the key documents that the defense has used in the construction of its case, particularly the Dept of Justice referral that started this whole kerfuffle. Here's are the key paragraphs in this 29-page motion. On Fitzboy's very selective release of documents. And, folks, what about about Plame's "covert" status?? Now don't say, as some on here surely will, "this has nothing to do with whether Libby perjured himself, or engaged in O of J." No, it has EVERYTHING to do with it. (emphases mine). Ah, yes, motive. You can't have a crime without a motive. But, gee, if there's no motive, how can there be a crime? Not to mention how the whole lefty moonbat meme -- "Bushco wanted to punish Wilson by outing his wife who was undercover" -- gets shattered into smithereens. In the end, this case is very very simple. Libby "lied" to the Grand Jury because he was afraid he would get caught revealing the name of a covert agent. But if she wasn't covert, and everybody knew it, what's the motive? And even if he DID lie, what is it a lie ABOUT? It is, like Seinfeld, a lie about nothing. Nothing at all. What jury will send a guy to prison over a mis-statment about NOTHING? Oh, one other interesting item, in a footnote. Fitz goofed. And he had to fess up. Well, to the NYT's credit, they are reporting on this gaffe by Fitzboy. But for all the talk on this board about how Fitz is SOOOOOOOOOO smart, for him to make this sort of fresh-out-of-law-school mistake is certainly not going to enhance his credibily with Walton. Or could it be that Fitzboy's team WANTED to see if this mistake could slide by? Not against Libby's high priced, and highly competent, sharks.
Not in this universe for a guy with as much to lose as Libby. But maybe in the fantasyland that you inhabit.
Thank you judge Wapner. Karl, while you struggle with the concept of "motive", ask yourself why -- if he was operating under the premise that the info had been declassified -- he didn't simply tell investigators, "I disclosed a bunch of information to Miller that had been recently been declassified by none other than the president himself." Remember, he is charged with obstructing justice. There is a question of relevance to some of those documents because her status has little to do with whether Libby tried to misrepresent things to a grand jury and investigators.
You guys should really run with Fitz's mistake here. If there's one distinction that is important to the American public, it's the distinction between the procurement of uranium being really, really, really important vs. it being merely really, really important.
Given Karl's Nostradamus-like record of forecasting things in the political arena, I'm going to go ahead and assume this story will come to two things: Jack and Shit.
Can these be merged into one of Karl's other threads discussing the exact same thing? Oh wait, on second thought, nevermind. He's used up 50% of his daily allowance with this one.
You see, this is why I don't think you guys are very smart. That is EXACTLY what he told the grand jury. Had you read the footnote I quoted you would understand this. I think. Maybe. But maybe not.
There's a whole lot of man love going on in this thread Karl watch out I think Lastort wants to oil you up and play bucking bronco with you
Once again, YOU, moonbat in chief, do NOT understand distinctions. I said the motion was compelling. I never say, anywhere, that is going to be granted, or that Libby is going to win. Let me go on record here. Libby COULD lose. This motion. His trial. He COULD get thrown into the slammer. Then again, this whole thing could just fizzle out totally. Of course, in your delusional view of the world, you only THINK that I predict he is going to win, or that I think that is what is going to happen. I studiously avoid making predicitions. But I give up hope that you, and the fellow great unwashed moonbatdom, will ever understand this. But hey, you're smart. Yep. You've got a steel trap mind.
Whatever happens with this thread, remember the [R] rule. Don't quote Karl, as about 2/3 of the people have him on their ignore lists. Thanks in advance. (I assume one or more of you who's replied to him has already been called stupid, but would prefer not to find out).
It's good that you can make the distinction, because I was beginning to wonder with the way you cream yourself over a reply brief in some discovery wrangling. This is preliminary crap that happens in virtually every civil and criminal case. The arguments are not that compelling. They are expected. It would be malpractice if they didn't ask for these documents. Wake me when we get to some substance.
As far as I can tell, still under review. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2006.html
I figure it's ok to quote Karl in a thread started by Karl. Especially when it's friggin' hi-larious.
Dead on. And please Karl, don't even pretend that you're only posting this crap as an interested observer, particularly when you start calling those who disgree with you "moonbats".
First of all, I'm not quoting K-Bat, I'm quoting Libby's lawyers. Because I bothered to read the damn thing over lunch. ... and right there, the defense explains why Fitzpatrick hasn't turned over all of the documents that the lawyers are requesting. By asking for Wilson's trip information and the NIE, Libby's lawyers are trying to defend him against charges that haven't been made against him. The charges are simple: Libby lied and intentionally misled the grand jury in its investigation of a possibly illegal disclosure of a CIA agent. Whether that investigation resulted in any charges against anyone is irrelevant to the charges brought forth against Libby -- you can't walk into any grand jury anywhere under oath and intentionally mislead them. Period. Here's a parallel: let's say there is a murder, and a witness takes the stand for the defense and just makes things up on the stand, saying he saw things that all evidence indicates is a total lie. And the prosecution can prove it's a lie. Then let's say other evidence emerges that exonerates the murder defendent, and he walks free. Does the result of the murder case mean the lying defense witness didn't perjure himself? And does the biography of, say, the murder victim's mother provide anything other than backstory? Which leads us to the big question -- why would Libby's lawyers want those documents? How are they relevant to defending him against perjury & obstruction? You'd have to spin a massive backstory in order to get any relationship between Wilson's trip to Niger and Libby telling GJ something that was a flat-out lie. And maybe that's what the defense wants to do -- but if they do, watch out because it's likely not in the White House's best interest. K-Bat started this by saying that the "strategy" of the defense is "clearer". I can't see that at all. Either they're grasping at straws, or they're trying to cut a deal, because on Libby's perjury trial alone, pretty much everything they are asking for is irrelevant.
I thought they were going indict Wilson. If Libby's lawyers are paid so well, how come they need to go to BigSoccer centrists for fellatio? Three options here: Libby's a traitor. He was following the orders of traitors. Or, most likely, both. Certainly was amusing of Ashcroft's Justice Department to recuse themselves from a case that was as simple as the President declassifying true information. One wonders why the CIA bothered to complain at all.