If it's a plea bargain, I'll be really pissed at Fitzgerald if he accepts it without some serious rolling over on Scooter's part. Maybe he could implicate Harriet....she was the secretary for the WHIGs. She knows where the skeletons are buried.....

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I'm with Fitz. Both Scooter and Dead eye testimony was bait and switch.

On Scooter, the promise of testimony was used to justify the introduction of otherwise irrelevant evidence attesting to just how busy Libby was with very important national security matters. With the evidence introduced, Hannah said what Libby would have said, without running the risk of a damaging cross-examination.

On Cheney, his presence on the witness list permitted the defense to create a litmus test during voir dire. By asking about biases against Cheney, they were able to weed out unfriendly jurors very easily.

I personally think this was the plan from the start.

I thought Fitz eviscerated Hannah when he asked him, given the intense schedule that Libby was under, how easy it was to arrange an out of office lunch or coffee meeting? Whether that would take an especially important issue? Hannah said it would--not realizing, I think, that Fitz was talking about the meeting with Miller--till after it was out of his mouth.

The Judge has been holding Wells quite close to the charges, for example, not allowing him to call Andrea Mitchell for the purposes of impeaching her about an irrelevancy. It may be that he has run out of witnesses that would fall within the strict limits the Judge has set. He may also instruct the jury to narrow the memory defense, because without Libby on the stand to testify as to state of mind, they may not have the means to infer the validity of that defense.

What is it about trolls? is an incredibly stupid post. Why make such a silly prediction? Whether you turn out to be right or wrong, it's crazy to try to predict how a jury will vote. They haven't seen the case you've seen. They haven't been reading commentary. There's no way to know what they'll say. You haven't heard any of the Fitzmas commentators making predictions because juries, are, you know, unpredictable.

But if you think Russert got gutted, then you're the only one. The Libby team is trying to call him back to make one more attempt at impeaching him.

Libby's only hope is jury nullification--that the jury will decide they're all a buncha schemin' lyin' bastards, and that there's no good reason to single out Libby.

Fitz has also pointed this out--that much of the irrelevant material that has been introduced is intended to lead to jury nullification.

Let's remember who filed the charges of outting Plame in the first place; it wasn't her husband, and it wasn't those who outted her either. It was....

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

According to what you call the "CIA agent" that you allege got outed, according to her husband, had her identity made public as a result of his actions.

You are skewering your own stupid argument, Jan.

You are alleging she was attacked solely because of the part of the CIA she worked in and the inteligence SHE handled. Your previous argument was not that she was singled out for that reason. Your previous argument was that Wilson spoke "Truth to Power", (which now has turned out to be the biggest side splitting laugher in history) and Bush wanted to get even with him by damaging his wife regardless of what the nature of her work was.

This stupid new story you are pitching bolsters the notion that her, her husband and her boss were trying to damage the President with lies. They have now been exposed.

Now that you see that Fitzmas failed, and Wilson has been exposed as a serial liar, You are attempting to salvage something from the previous lies that you have told. Not even a nice try, Jan. It's a pathetic effort.

"...Does seem that we've now got a matter of public agreement on just what we had to prove in order to get people angry. That's what made us so happy about having a trial!..."

Sounds like you are admitting this whole trial has been a fishing expedition and a farce, but it made people angry, so mission accomplished.

Did I follow that right?

I think you're on to it, PW. Thought so the moment I heard that neither Cheney nor Scooter would take the stand. The fix is in! (Think Casper Weinberger, and wonder if Scooter didn't at some point think they'd make sure he never even faced a jury.) Still, Libby may take the rap, but Dick will see that he doesn't become somebody's prison wife.

This is from the Firedoglake live blogging, and should not be considered a transcript:

=====
"Walton All he's done is cooperate with Fitz' representation. In the same way that I respect you make accurate representations to me, I trust them. We've got a rule, I understand the arguments, I don't think it's fair to permit Russert's integrity to be challenged based on govt representation. In reference to tapes, the law is clear wrt impeachment on proir inconsistent statement. Under circumstances, when it's collatoral, extrinsic evidence can't be used for impeaching. The fact that Russert made the statement doesn't go to what he said about Libby."
=====

Could some of the legal experts here explain this? Is Judge Walton saying that the 9-year-old discrepency is _not_ enough to impeach Russert's testimony?

sPh

Jay, Everyone else here is making predictions and then one that you're so scared of makes you pee in your panties.

This is another troll trait--just making stuff up about what other people believe. Every thoughtful commenter over at FDL, which is where the most knowledgeable folks are, make no predictions. Everything from a plea bargain to an innocent verdict is on the table. As far as my bladder control issues go, it wouldn't bother me at all if he walked. The reason he is in the dock is that he lied to keep the information that has come out in the trial from coming out. Knowing that Cheney runs US foreign policy, and the he personally targets his enemies for smear campaigns is precisely what Libby was covering up.

Plus we get a special bonus of seeing just how complicit the beltway media is in delivering the white house message.

He lied yesterday when he claimed he did not know that appearances in front of grand jury do not include attorneys.

This will be still more embarrassment for Timmeh, which I'm quite happy to see happen, if the judge allows it. But it doesn't undermine the prosecution case. That Timmeh tried to slip and slide his way out of being called to account is unsurprising. But his testimony on the question that affects Libby has been hard to shake. It's corroborated repeatedly--Libby heard about this long before he made his "viewer complaint."

Libby's motive to lie is flimsy

I agree that motive is the weakest part of the case. The trouble, as always seems to happen to Libby in this case, is that it's lose-lose for him. The most compelling motive is his deep loyalty to Cheney and the OVP. But if that's not true--if he's just after the main chance, then the getting fired or going to jail motive carries more weight. Fleischer quick pursuit of immunity doesn't help Libby, although Fitz may not be able to introduce this.

I'm the only one in the world that thinks he's been gutted?

I dunno. I was listening to Imus this morning. He certainly doesn't think Timmeh got gutted. Neither does Orrin Hatch. Maybe you are the only one in the world (although you may be a bot, if we take your grammar literally. We don't use "that" when referring to people, even ourselves. We use "who"), aside from the guy who supplied the talking points you're parroting.

What channel are you watching over there?

I don't watch the teevee much. I've been reading the fdl liveblog and forming my own conclusions. While they are certainly rooting for certain results over there, they have been quite objective and thoughtful in their analysis.

Oh, this is another weird troll trait--the reflexive personal attack. Do you really have so little respect for your own arguments that you can't defend them on their merits?

Thus ends my semi-annual departure from the injunction to not feed the trolls.

But you know TJKING (another troll trait--they're always SHOUTING), if you do ever develop an interest in reasoned discourse, your voice would be very welcome. This site needs more reasoned discourse from non-progressives. I still cannot get over why this is so hard to come by.
[update: stupid typo corrected]

I haven't been following the case closely. How long can Libby stay out of jail during the appeals process? Bush will certainly pardon him before he leaves office.

Not only tiresome, but also lightweight! This guy is so transparent and weak that it is obvious why his job for this administration is only sitting around typing up talking points. I'm sure he thinks he "coulda been a contender" but alas, he is just a troll also-ran.

Jan Knaus

Jay, Your quaint generalizations about what you like to call trolls was a response to my post, I did not seek you out, so your remark about reflexive attack would best apply to someone who responded to my post with remarks like the following:

"...What is it about trolls?...incredibly stupid...such a silly... crazy......a buncha schemin' lyin' bastards, ..." So that is an example of some of the language you used in a reflexive attack to my post. You jumped me for making predictions, when in fact by my saying Fitz's case is dead, I did not say how the verdict would go, so why would that offend you or anyone else anyway to cause you to start your name calling rant?

I replied with detailed responses to your remark about my opinion of Russerts testimony and since you don't like to hear the facts, you pretend like your proxy opinions from Imus, FDL, or even Orrin Hatch have anything to contradict the two lies that Russert told.

Your recitation of others opinions and then claiming that I have somone elses talking points is self evident projection on your part. You follow it up with this:

"...Oh, this is another weird troll trait--the reflexive personal attack. Do you really have so little respect for your own arguments that you can't defend them on their merits?..., if you do ever develop an interest in reasoned discourse, your voice would be very welcome..."

Weird? Troll traits?

More names and reflexive attacks from you to compensate for your failure to address my factual statements? Pretty weak Jay. I have respect for the facts. You avoided them. I defended it, you avoided it. Your name calling and editorializing on generalizations of Trolls is clearly your attempt to hide your weak argument and fill space with diversions and whining.

How is Russert coroborated repeatedly? All he has to do is lie that he did or didn't tell Libby, who else was on the phone? Mitchell used the same phrasing he did when she admitted that everyone knows, she is the one that told Russert. Russert has not been corroborated and if he is willing to lie (which you have not addressed) to limit his exposure to Grand Jury testimony and he is also willing to lie about his knowledge of the law (which you did not directly address) in an attempt to conceal his motive for his lying, how is that not impeaching the reliability of the lynchpin(Russert) of Fitz's case. You also didn't mention Miller's main allegation being shot out of the sky.

I point out facts and you call names and sit back and whine about how you can't find a debate anywhere. You knew you were going to avoid addressing those points and pretending like facts don't exist, just because you pretend like they don't exist is a poor effort on your part.

I will give you one more chance to address the points Jay and if you want to keep name calling, psychoanalyzing, and evading then we will know that you really are insecure with your ability to withstand a logical exchange based on the facts.

You responded to my post, so if my opinions upset you, you have expressed yourself on that, but if you would like to also look at the facts and discuss them, Let me know.

What he is saying is that Wells should not spend too much time beating up Russert on his extensive lying regarding his attempts to protect himslef from suffering a Judith Miller type contempt jailing because of protecting a source. Walton is trying to claim that it doesn't disprove the statements he claims he made to Libby, so he is telling Wells to move on. Especially regarding the Lewinsky era tape on NBC where Russert clearly explained his extensive experience as an attorney that all Americans are aware that you are not typically allowed counsel in a Grand Jury, where as yesterday he claimed he was completely unaware of this commonly known fact. It would be the equivalent of a cop saying he was not aware that when he stole a car that it was against the law.

Wells is trying to argue that Russert's current lies are clear attempts to cover up his earlier lies to protect his "real" source, and that is Well's tie in to call into question what he said to Libby.

Walton is pulling both of their chains in because he doesn't want it to get out of control.

Wilson is a serial liar. I did say that and it has the added advantage of being true. I have proven that to you in numerous posts and responses to your posts that you have failed to refute. Even the Senate in its official report basically contend that he is a liar. Was I glib about calling him a liar? No I am quite serious about Wilson's extensive deceptions and even your buddies here are recently reduced to admitting that this whole affair has been a farce that has been useful to their personal political views, but nonetheles a farce. I consider that offensive. Wilson remains a scoundrel, nothing glib in that statement.

Oh, and I continue to be flattered by your references to my being paid by the various cabals that you have attributed to my affiliation.

So now, in the event, Russert's not gonna be called back. Don't you see that a more measured and thoughtful approach to this case might have been wiser? Imus didn't think he'd been "gutted." Neither did Hatch. Nor, apparently, does Walton think it matters all that much what Russert said about grand juries a decade ago.

And, it is the NUMBER ONE A TEAM.

Little Scooter, memory weak but a fine example of the best of the Bush Administration. The finest most honest, responsible, most compassionate group of top notch results oriented freedom spreaders and truth tellers this or any nation on earth has ever elevated to the halls of power.

They are worth every dead American, Iraqi, Italian, Brit, Pole, Spaniard, UN staffer, Canadian, Ukrainian...I know I am forgetting some... and the trillion or two in new US debt that it has cost to get them re-elected. Semper Fi Scooter, a pardon awaits you.

I told you I'd give you one more chance to address the facts and you decided to play the same evasive games as the other blow-hards that are all bluster and no substance. You had several chances to debate Russert and you ran and hid under your covers again. Weak.

Now I know why you huddle in your echo chamber for 364 days and then pop your head out and pretend that you have just engaged in debate. Keep pretending.

Me, stay tuned? I won't hold my breath.

SeeDee

TJKING is so absurd that I suggest this reference to his utterly idiotic commentary be the last notice of him.

Maybe they'll let him troll elsewhere.