« The President's Counselor In-House Lobbyist | Main | Duncan Hunter Taught Duke Cunningham His Crooked Ways »

June 14, 2007


EW--Thank you for all you have done to bring us to this moment. You are incredible--fast, smart, insightful, thoughtful, etc. Of course Fitz and his team and Walton had something to do with it, but you cleared the brush for many of us. Thank you.
P.S. Is it beer thirty yet?

Walton: Also, re: Scalia, if we had a situation where the special counsel could be removed at will, this would have changed his position regarding Morrison.

Robbins: Well I doubt that since I was there when Scalia read his opinion.

In other words: I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I now know more than you on this subject.

Well, I have a conference call in two hours. Soon as that is over, I do believe it will be beer:30.

Robbins: Well I doubt that since I was there when Scalia read his opinion.

That's one of the stupidest -- and most arrogant -- things uttered by a lawyer in court that I have ever heard (which is saying a lot). Unless the idea was to goad Reggie into saying something injudicious (a sleazy move), I see no percentage in it at all.

They're going to appeal today and file a motion with the court for release pending appeal, with a 20-page brief in support, which is already written. Ghod I hope they draw a relatively hack-free panel.

And if they lose that motion in the court of appeals, Robbins can appeal to the Circuit Justice, which is none other than Chief Justice Roberts.

Oops. Oh, no, I didn't. I wrote clearing brush but I didn't mean GWB weed whacking. I meant finding the path, clearing the trail, in some ways, walking point. No offense intended.

Great tip on Robbins this morning--it made a big difference on understanding what was going on, being able to read the tone of the proceedings.

Now we get to see the spin. That's my favorite thing about Walton's "first year law student" money quote--how does that not make the news, along with some of the other substantive statements you include above? But why not just enjoy the fact that Walton did the job today, at least for a minute?

So that's the question, after all your hard work ew: how do you feel?

Hi EW.

Looked for you over at FDL this am, and see you let someone else's fingers do the walking this time around. Your not-a-transcripts of the trial were an incredible gift to the rest of us, btw. I can type fast enough to do that kind of thing -- I just can't listen fast enough to keep up.


But, as Fitzgerald and Bonamici pointed out, it's not something the Defense has every objected to, raising the real possibility that they've effectively waived their right to appeal on the issue.
If TeamLib is using it in their defective appointment argument, I don't it's something that has to be preserved in an objection at trial.

Sebatian - Roberts being the Circuit hot judge for this cuts both ways though. He just left DC District Ct.; Reggie is his friend.

Robbins: Well I doubt that since I was there when Scalia read his opinion.

That's one of the stupidest -- and most arrogant -- things uttered by a lawyer in court that I have ever heard (which is saying a lot). Unless the idea was to goad Reggie into saying something injudicious (a sleazy move), I see no percentage in it at all.

Actually reminds me of Toensing's testimony before Waxman, that she knows everything about whether Valerie Plame was covert because she (Toensing) wrote the law.

Sebastian Dangerfield - Two questions - on appeal from the DCCA, does Chief Justice Roberts decide whether Scooter gets bail, can he stay the decision like in a death penalty case pending the hearing of the matter by the DCCA or SCOTUS? Also, assuming that the DCCA decides to deny Scooter's appeal, does Team Libby need as many as four votes for SCOTUS to accept the appeal? FWIW, I think it unlikely that the Chief Justice, as clever as he is at appearing to be fair, would tip his hand at this stage and free Libby - I think Shrub pulls a Calley on this one, release pending appeal but no pardon yet.

Ishmael and Dangerfield - don't you think there is a real question whether or not respite is still viable in light of Congress having specifically occupied the area of law since the last time (during or prior to WWII) the concept of respite was attempted to be used by a president through passage of 18 USC 3143(b) mandating a presumption of remand pending appeal.

In the AP story, the law student line is way up there, just below Perino's statement that Bush won't comment. Followed by Walton mentioning being harassed.

Nice. Walton didn't just do a great, comprehensive job and make the right decision, he did it with the proper attitude to control the essential message.

bmaz -- the bet -- restated:

look -- bmaz -- i respect your opinion,
but do you really think the supremes are
going to set briefing -- and more impor-
tantly -- oral argument, on this, ahead
of the already-accepted docket? c'mon.

that would evince naked politics -- and
i personally believe they are too smart
to do that. . .

my guess -- it will be heard late fall at the
earliest before the supremes. . .

and so, i propose another nexthurrah wager:

i will pay you (via a shipping method of
your choosing!) one completely-humble-apple-
pie, if the supremes have freed scooter
before he self-reports, or is ordered in
by judge walton. . . deal? and, now, will
you put your pie where your pen -- erh, key-
board -- has been?

that is -- will you offer the same, in return?

if so, done.


[isn't it just like lawyers to
want to hedge every bet? you say
you want to see how walton rules.
with the amended terms, below, i
am plainly accepting the risk that
walton could grant scoots a pass. . .

not a big risk, i know. . . now:]

okay -- bmaz -- let me make the
terms more. . . erh, appealing,
for you: if any court, anywhere,
has freed scooter before he serves
at least one full day of jail
time -- you win

this -- obviously -- does not
give you a "win", if a pardon
comes, and some court ultimately
sustains the pardon, before scoots
hits the doors of camp fed. . . so,
in the event of a pardon -- it is a
"push-bet", unless scoots is already
incarcerated when the pardon comes.

then, i win.

[i'll note that i agree with your
thinking about team libby choosing
strategically against filing inter-
locutory appeals on these issues. . .
and, for exactly the reasons you suggest. . .]

thus, i say the next judicial order
to "liberate" scooter will come only
after he has been incarcerated -- for
at least one full day.

so -- do we have an accord?

The most important part of this sentencing: someone in our Judiciary has demonstrated concern that "our system of government loses significant credibility," something it's done non-stop for the past six years as far as this Juke-on-the-street is concerned. I take no joy in seeing Mr. Libby carted off to prison; I'd much rather see real justice served on the real criminals, but three cheers for Judge Walton for putting it into the record that this MATTERS.

Laws are not only for the people being governed. Someone should remind President Signing Statement of this on a daily basis.

Bmaz - I am not an American lawyer (New blacroynm -IAMAUSL) but on basic principles, I agree that respite is problematic as a result of Congressional legislative action, but I do think that the specific constitutional grant of clemency powers to POTUS would trump the general rule of interpretation that Congress has occupied the field. I'm not sure Shrub can avoid feeding the base by freeing Scooter temporarily given the immigration hits he has taken with them - plus, as there is no pardon (yet), Scooter can still take the 5th before Congress if he is subpoenad.

Amici Illuminati

That's one keyboard you owe me for. It'll be at least a day before it's dry.


Could this arrogance be in part because they really are confident of getting an overrule from the 4th Circuit?

Nice. Walton didn't just do a great, comprehensive job and make the right decision, he did it with the proper attitude to control the essential message.

Great post bmaz! always look for ur two cents .

EW you are right up there with my idol Molly!


No no.

bmaz owes you a keyboard. I stole it from him (and have been making liberal use of it ever since).

Personally I think it is more important to get the Libby types. If they know that they will go to jail, or face the possibility, then the mere fact that there are more of them than top dogs goes a long way in sending a message. Also, the Libby lobby is not easily repeated, since it is difficult to keep arguing special circumstances.

On the 'first year law' brief: maybe a self serving reason is behind it: they just told a few dozen potential clients that they are willing to argue anything no matter how shameful. It is like cheap advertising.

nolo - Wife put me on a diet. Desert tray at your place looks tasty. Here is the deal. Sebastian Dangerfield, over at FDL earlier, spelled it out just right. I think most people thought he was joking about having someone in the room to run file the appeal on the spot. I know for a fact he was not. If I were Libby's lawyer, I absolutely would have come to court armed with a prepared Notice and Application For Bail/Remand Review; Request for Prompt/Expedited Determination, all necessary copies to be conformed by the Circuit Clerk, and a blank check for appellate filing bond (just in case, but should not be necessary for the remand issue alone). All of this would be in a folder in the hand of one of my clerks or paralegals who would be sitting in the rear of the courtroom; the second Walton announced his decision I would nod or point to them and they would head immediately to the Circuit Clerk's office. No joke; i have done this before. When I did it, it was not a high profile case, so I personally took the papers to the appellate clerk, but same difference. Because of all the press, Libby's attorney would have an aide quietly slink off and do this. I would imagine the Circuit court then sets a 10 day response interval, and if I was up against Libby's self surrender date, I would likely waive reply time. Probably no oral argument needed. My bet was simply that this can all be done before Libby surrenders; irrespective of what the decision of the Circuit court is; there will be a decision before surrender. If it is your bet that I am wrong, you are on. Ummmm. Pie!

Well, the "not something I'd accept from a first year law student" comment is hitting MSM - HOWEVER, I did notice on MSN.COM that the story "Libby ordered directly to prison" contains the quote as "not something I'd EXPECT from a first year law student"

I wonder if they deliberately toned it down, or is this just a mistake. Seems deliberated to me, but is it really worth the misquote?

The headline is actully "No delay in Libby Sentence" on MSN.com

Ishmael - that is an excellent point. I guess my argument would be that respite is not a form of clemency; because it does not specifically address the verdict, it only allows for the defendant to be free during the process and that Congress has the right to, and has, addressed this subject in the interest of the public. I am not saying I am right on this; simply that i think this is a decent argument if Bush actually tries this horseshit.

Ishmael: Actually, an application for bail pending appeal is one of a handful of things that are decided by the circuit justice on his or her own. If you fail in the court of appeals, you seek relief from the circuit justice, who has the power to grant it.

bmaz: I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but insofar as I think i do, I'd say "no." Setting a new, less convicted-defendant-friendly standard for granting bail pending appeal has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and the circuit justice to decide the question. Stated otherwise, I don't think there can conceivably be any pre-emption of jurisdiction, if that's what you're getting at.

bmaz sez:

". . .If it is your bet that I am wrong, you are on. Ummmm. Pie!"

i too, love pie. so, my bet terms
are -- as stated above(!) -- not so
much that you are "wrong" -- because
i agree that it "could" come out the
way you have suggested, above.

no, the bet is -- from my perspective -- just
that "the math" will work out so that scoots
sees some jail time before any judicial tribunal
grants him any sort of release -- or bail.

a pardon is a push.


that is the bet.

Damn. Now I got Sebastian AND myself confused. I don't recall saying anything about jurisdictional pre-emption; only that I think there is a decent argument that this theory of "respite" is not a formal modality of clemency or pardon and, therefore, congress passing 18 USC 3143 means that respite is not available to Bush. Respite wouldn't apply to the Circuit Court, they if so inclined, simply overrule Walton.


Thank you Marcy, Jane, Patch, Jerelyn, FDL and TNH for seeking the facts and keeping us informed when the mainstream media has decided in general, to become government propaganda voiceboxes. Someday, blogs will win Pulitzers and you will be the first with the honor.


Walton should be nominated as a profile of courage. He should never receive dealth threats. But this is the new world -- win at all costs.

Personally, those threats deserve sunshine - more specific than Walton just referencing receiving them. Especially, if any came from anyone who carries responsibilities to the greater public.


Robbins essentially argued the circuit has a bias on Walton's decision prior to the circuit court receiving an appeal. How can Robbins argue that? I thought judges were sworn to have an unbias court? (All jokes aside, hypothetically speaking, Bushco aside and the reality of the make-up of the DC Circuit and all...) It also hints at judicial/lawyer colusion. If there is a bias in the DC Circuit on court record (this Libby sentencing hearing), can FItz request the appeal be heard in another circuit due to evidence of bias? Robbins should be made to explain his statement, "I think the DC Curcuit will reconcile differently." This is not a statement of arguement for his client. This is a personal "knowing" type of comment and did not belong in the courtroom. Would all other circuits reconcile differently from Walton? Is there more legal basis or is this yet another threat? I realize the appeal goes to the DC circuit but it seems odd to go with this blatent inference as though he knows for sure that they would rule differently. I am not a lawyer, so I am just searching here... That specific quote deserves more investigation and public scrutiny. In terms of "the people vs...where do we the people have rights to make sure court decisions are not made in favor because of colusion?

Again, thanks to all for your amazing efforts (I'll post a thanks at FDL too).

"that would evince naked politics -- and
i personally believe they are too smart
to do that. . ."

Before the Felonious Five issued Bush v. Gore, I would have said the same thing, but now? Naked politics is what they do best.

Ah, I theenk I get it now! The idea was that Bush cannot grant clemency under the Pardon Clause because Congress has prescribed a standard for bail on appeal. That wouldn't work because Congress cannot take away a constitutionally granted power of the president by passing a law; it would take a constitutional amendment. An old Supremes case, Ex Parte Grossman was particularly bullish on the Pardon Power being one that neither the Congress nor the courts could mess with.

But if you're wondering whether Bush would try to interfere with the case by trying to grant some kind of non-pardon temporary relief for Libby, I would say the President can't -- but not because of 1343, but rather because he would be tinkering with a pending case in a way not contemplated by the pardon power. He can probbably do a lot short of a full and unconditional pardon -- say, commute the sentence, as was proposed recently by some hack in the WSJ -- but I don't think he can grant the equivalent of release pending appeal.

SD - Nixon released Calley pending appeals, but I was asking yesterday if this was due to Calley's military status and Nixon being CIC of the Armed Forces - but then again perhaps this could be another useful way for Shrub to continue his quest to be CIC of Everything.

This is really tardy snark, but I can't resist:

Walton: Also, re: Scalia, if we had a situation where the special counsel could be removed at will, this would have changed his position regarding Morrison.

Robbins: Well I doubt that since I was there when Scalia read his opinion.

Apparently, Scalia was winking and/or crossing his fingers for the spectators.

Sebastian - Yeah. I think that hack is David Frum who trotted out this antiquated theory of "respite" and said under respite, Bush could merely order that Libby not be incarcerated pending appeal, but that it is not an act of either clemency or pardon. This is what I am saying I think 1343 may supersede.

From Wiki: "Respites delay the imposition of sentence but in no way modify a sentence or address questions of due process, guilt or innocence. Historically, presidents have granted most respites for periods of 30 to 90 days and have renewed (extended) such delays when it seemed necessary.[2] The most common public explanations for respites have been to:
delay executions (for a variety of reasons)
alllow additional time to study clemency applications
await the outcome of an appeal
allow full executive review of a sentence affirmed in the appeallate process"

in her/his expression of gratitude,

klynn speaks for me too.

Sebastian - Also note that I don't necessarily think I have a winning argument hear in light of the open nature of pardon under the Constitution, respite just seems like a tacky and cheap way out for Bush, therefore I don't like it and want to try to counter it with something, anything.

Just my own humble effort to keep track of things:

NYT 15-paragraph article covers the basics in first 8 graphs, #9 says today's proceedings "were not without drama," #10 covers harassment of Walton, and #12 has "first year law student." (I think we have to start looking for "accept" vs. "except" in the law student lines; they got it wrong somewhere.)

Which relates to another item: anybody want to keep track of how many times emptywheel is going to have to credit bmaz for "amici illuminati"? Not that bmaz cares, I assume. What happens when Olbermann uses it and credits emptywheel? It's not going away, especially since Walton's "wouldn't accept it from a first-year law student" refers specifically to the A.I. (Insert hortatory subjunctive solution here.)

Ah-HAH! Now I really do understand. That's fascinating about Lt. Calley. That's a part of that sordid story I did not recall. Nixon may well have been exercising some kind of non-Pardon Clause, Commander-in-Chiefish power when he did that, but it's truly fascinating. For my lights, that looks less and less like the exercise of a pardon and more like just plain interference witha pending case. But, no sooner did I type my last that I further reflected that even if I'm right -- that a temporary release order from the Pres. is not contemplated by the Pardon power -- if the Pres. did purport to grant release pending appeal under the aegis of the Pardon Clause, who would stand in the way? Given the extreme deference the courts give to the president when exercising Pardon Clause power, and given further that Grossman and other cases talk about "conditional" pardons, I'm not convinced you'd hear a peep out of the courts.

if the president "bails" out scooter in this matter,

1) it will be necessary to construct a virtual prison

where scooter

and other miscreants in the political-crimes family bush heads,

can do their time on line.

orange duds for republican studs - scooter, bradley, kyle, karl, alberto.... - on line.

2) what immunities, if any, would scooter/cheney/bush lose with even a little presidential meddling ("respite") in the case?

I signed over all rights on AI to Ms. Wheel. No more attribution to me is warranted or desired. Unless t-shirts are printed and money is to be made; then it's mine.

orionATL: I think that the truly dastardly thing about granting "respite" -- a temporary relief from the sentence pending something else happening instead of a full and unconditional pardon -- is that, unlike a full pardon, a "respite" would confer no immunity. Bush couls continue to get his 13 hours of sleep every night.


"I realize the appeal goes to the DC circuit but it seems odd to go with this blatent inference as though he knows for sure that they would rule differently."

Saying "I think the DC Curcuit will reconcile differently." is just lawyer speak for "I think you are soooo wrong" which is not exactly a politic choice. Robbin's remark about hearing the Scalia opinion was about as in your face as an appellate legal eagle is going to get. I doubt he ever expected a friendly ruling from Judge Walton and I'd wager he just didn't want to flesh out his actual appeal for the Prosecutor's office.

Sebastian - LOL about 13 hours of sleep! That reminded me about the "quality of mercy" in Bush from his days as Governor of Texas - he would rely on AGAG to review death penalty decisions while he was in the gym or playing video games, then he would go back to the office after lunch and a nap, and sign some death warrants before knocking off early for the day. Besides the irony of AGAG applying his Texas standard of judicial deference to Judge Walton's carefully reasoned decisions for Shrub, I expect that Scooter is getting far more sympathy from the Decider than poor Karla Faye "Please don't kill me!" Tucker got from the Bully in Chief.

JMHanes says:

Saying "I think the DC Curcuit will reconcile differently." is just lawyer speak for "I think you are soooo wrong" which is not exactly a politic choice. Robbin's remark about hearing the Scalia opinion was about as in your face as an appellate legal eagle is going to get. I doubt he ever expected a friendly ruling from Judge Walton and I'd wager he just didn't want to flesh out his actual appeal for the Prosecutor's office.

So the opporative word here is "think"?

But he clearly meant to infer more than "you are wrong" with his line of argument and repsonses to Walton.

His boldness on this matter was shocking (yet expected).


Oh sure, you disown AI now that people want to come after me for their keyboard damage.



"So the opporative word here is "think"

Pretty much.

"But he clearly meant to infer more than "you are wrong" with his line of argument and repsonses to Walton."

Well, yeah. In order to get bail for Libby, Robbins had to persuade Judge Walton that the DC Circuit might look at the questions Walton addressed in his Opinion and come up with different answers. That was Robbin's legal burden here -- in other words, that was Robbins' job.

Just doing his job, huh? I suppose that any other defence attorney in the same position would have made roughly the same set of (non-)arguments, right? I'm sure this, er, "reticence"? was just motivated by not wanting to give away future arguments.


A couple of things about Robbins. First, he apparently walked onto this case, like, yesterday. To his credit (not that I'm rooting for him, but just to point out he's smart) he found one possible basis for appeal (the CIPA/Appointments issue) that Libby's lawyers hadn't found.

Now, he obviously made a choice to be a jerk about this with Walton. That may be bc he misplayed Walton, it may be bc he knew he was working from behind, or it may be bc he hasn't yet figured out what it means to have a liveblog going, with your language repeated instantly in a way it normally isn't (though, since he spends so much time before SCOTUS, that SHOULDN'T be a problem).

That said, it is his job to try to get an appeal. He doesn't know the case that well--he walked onto it this weekend. So there may be a lot of reasons for his approach, not least that he was compensating for under-preparation with nastiness.

Very interesting that Robbins walked into this yesterday.

It occurs to me that he is the mop-up guy. Cleaning up the mess made by Libby & Comstock Wells & Jeffress. Brought in to be a grown up, to "take charge" (Harriet putting her foot down?).

But re his choice to be a jerk to Judge Walton: I know this will not be a dicey thing to say, but when I read in Pach's transcript what he said about "he" was there to hear Scalia (and Walton wasn't), I saw that as a not-so-subtle pulling of rank, like, Reggie, "remember your place." Well understood in a city such as DC, and can be read in a number of different ways...but the meaning is clear. particularly to the base, that is the base that "matters."

If you "get" my meaning....

Or he may just be an arrogant, holier than thou pompous ass, which is a common character set among many high priced appellate specialists. I have no problem with him making the arguments he did; that indeed is his job. The "I have ESP into Scalia's mind because I was there" bit simply has no innocent explanation. I am going to leave Robbins in the Arrogant Illuminati clan absent a good reason to remove him from the same.

bmaz: Arrogant Illuminati is right. The Scalia comment was as much as telling Reggie, "I know the secret handshake."

It also is possible that he set out not just to make his arguments pointedly -- perfectly respectable strategy there -- but also to be a dick, gambling that he can perhaps provoke some comments from Reggie that he can use to spice up his brief on the bail issue and on the merits. He surely knew that the writing was on the wall, and thus that there was no downside to alienating Reggie (he's an appellate lawyer after all and is unliikely to be a repeat player in Reggie's court).

Maybe Team Libby's waiting to file their stay motion until they get a rush transcript. I'll be very interested to see if they try to cast Reggie as a hot-head.

But then again maybe he's just a dick

Or he may just be an arrogant, holier than thou pompous ass

Same difference. To the manor born, that is....

Casting Reggie as a hot-head.

There ya go...

Sebastian - I would assume, because its what I would do, that Team Libby talked to the court reporter and Walton's assistants ahead of time about getting an accelerated transcript from today's proceedings, which shouldn't be to problematic as it didn't last very long. Its pretty easy to get fast transcripts (assuming you are willing to pay the ante) these days because the chicken scratch automatically goes into transcript draft form live as it happens. Quite possible they could have the transcript lodged by tomorrow unless I am missing something here.

EW, I understand your point about Robbins coming into this just very recently. Still, his approach & tone were very arrogant and demeaning to Judge Walton. I cannot read it any other way. Does he get credit for "possibly" finding a basis for appeal? Perhaps...but I think he made a big mistake being so arrogant in his tone. And I will not give him any credit for his obnoxious & disrespectful approach.

This whole defense team and most of the Libby backers have been so absolutely obnoxious with their spinning and excuses for his crimoinal behavior. I have no empathy or use for their ilk -- the American people deserve better; they deserve justice. Many of us are so tired of these wing-tipped lawyers and politicians yelling about the rule of law until one of them gets caught breaking the law, and then it's a far different story.

EW may have posted this before, but here's the Scalia Dissent in Morrison, in case anyone might be interested in reading it themselves.

I thought one of the most interesting lines of the liveblog was Bonamici saying something like "everyone in the counsel's office was very aware every day of the possibility of removal."

I think she's basically saying they were holding their breath that Comey and career folk could cover them long enough for them to get the job done. I'm sure they had to keep those considerations in mind all the time (e.g. when they interviewed Bush and Cheney).

Now we're deep into spin I assume, and I wonder how it's going. Earlier of course I was lazily tracking the traction of Walton's comment about the AI.

But I forgot to add at that point that it will be interesting to see if the Robbins addition gets any recognition at all. There wasn't anything in the NYT story, for instance. Flawless ew blog superhero effort that we've come to expect (goddess of her personal side of the blogosphere, surveying it from on high) alerting us to the fact that LDT (Libby Defense Team) added an expensive big time free agent right before the next round of the playoffs. Knowing who Robbins was and what he was doing made the whole Pach liveblog experience today intelligible. And it allows us to speculate now about the inner workings of the LDT. But what about the MSM coverage and everybody who means well but is trying to keep up? They're going to have to dig a little to get to the Robbins level, I expect. Then again, how many people know about Wells crying and Fitz yelling in the last round (I even forget for the moment what he said, scorched unit that I am), although the "cloud over the vice president's office" has gotten really good traction. Let's hope (HS--you know what that means!) that Walton's first year law student smackdown of the AI is the longterm takeaway from today.

I coming late to this good news day.

Thanks emptywheel and commenters here, and thanks to the Firedoglake crew.

Tell Congress: Send Scooter Libby to Guantanamo


If anyone deserves to be housed in Guanatanamo, it is Scooter Libby. He betrayed the national security of this country by outing Valerie Plame, who was working to to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Even former President George H. W. Bush called those who reveal the names of covert operatives "the most insidious of traitors." Hundreds of prisoners at Guantamo have not even been accused of crimes, but are still being held without being convicted. Scooter Libby has already been convicted. If Guantanamo isn't good enough for Libby, then it isn't good enough for anyone.

As I have said before, Wells hasn't done too well in this trial, so they brought in a closer in Robbins.

I copied this evening in PBS, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, and have just heard it. A very good lawyer Douglas W. Kimiec from Pepperdine explained how the obstruction charge was weak because no underlying crime was proven (verdicted by the Jury) or even charged by the Prosecutor. Plus the culprit that started the whole thing was known before Fitzgerald took his station.
He seemed to me to cut the ground out from under both Fitzgerald's and Walton's arguments.

Mr Kimiec was one of the 12 legal scholars who submitted the brief that seemed to upset Walton.

yo, shit stain, are you STILL clinging to that piss weak argument ???

just because "some guy" said so on television ???

even Pat Buchannan admits that scooter is a luing fuck who deserves to go to prison

and I would say that Judge Walton was more "INSULTED" than "upset" about the pathetically weak brief submitted by your new hero

so, when the Appeals Court confirms Judge Walton's ruling, and we learn that douchbagowitz and your new hero don't know what the fuck they're talking about, what straw will you cling to then, shit stain ???

life must suck for you shit stains right now

how do you deal with being so consistently wrong about this stuff ???

I posted a little longer version of the as-usual bizarre slobbering from Chris Matthews about Fred Thompson where the pipsqueak from The Weakly Standard makes about the only valid point of that segment when he refers to a speech at Hoover.org where Thompson puts Roe V. Wade at the top of his list for damaging judicial decision made in the last 30 years:
"Pandering without looking like you’re pandering"-Chris Matthews

David Shuster’s excellent wrap-up from the Libby decision Thursday:
and a special...

"Great Moments In Television Punditry; Scooter Libby Edition"

You’re getting the links FIRST along with DU, FDL and CandL


Tags: Bush Cheney Rove Libby Plame Wilson Brewster_Jennings nuclear Feith Novak Viveca Luskin Cooper Coern Issikoff Armitage Woodward OSP Miller Pincus Bennett York Lowery Kristol Weekly_Standard neocon CIA Tenet Powell Chalabi Curveball

Wow, Jodi, if that's the best Kmiec can do, I hope the defense is not paying him anything to help out with the appeal. Both of those points were convincingly addressed at the trial and/or during sentencing phase.


again (and again) I am not a lawyer, but Mr Kimiec made it a lot clearer to me than anyone else had. Maybe he is just good at talking to non-lawyer types.

But really he seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to the guy for the Prosecution side.

Still I guess Robbins will be addressing the Judges on the Appellant Court in that lawyer Jargon that he used in the sentence appeal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad