« Duke Conference: Role of the Public | Main | What's that thing nature abhors, again? »

September 29, 2007


Absolutely fascinating. Let Reggie know that there were many of us that did not question him just because of who he was appointed by. He has a very extensive record as a man of truth and justice; that was always good enough for me. It is the content of the man, not the quality of his appointer that counts. Now, of course, with people like Brett Kavanaugh, and more experienced, but similarly horrible, Janice Rogers Brown, both sides of the equation are pitiful.

Congratulations on the compliment from Judge Walton, Marcy!

Did you ask Judge Walton how he kept a straight face when Wells made his plaintive wail in closing, "Give me back my Scooter!"?

A question that would have been interesting to hear answers to - but where the better part of valor for most would have required staying mum - would be to ask about a sitting judge publishing the kind of very politically partisan statements and attack on US Senators as are being quoted as excerpts from Thomas biography and when it is that a judge should recuse and what should happen with respect to a judge who should, but won't.

Great conf reporting.

Per Loo Hoo, congrats emptywheel!

Thanks to you EW we Did get the news and honest background info. Congratz! I tell all my clients about "the Next Hurrah" and plugs for all the professional and non professional bloggers. I have my laptop at the office and will show those that have a bad view of bloggers that Not All sites are a bunch of wierdos and that there are real discussions here.Most are amazed that what they have heard is not true. I have a rather conservative client base but most are open minded and are professionals. I also let them know about other sites FDL, and Kos, etc. and what to expect. The perception the Mainstream media has put out there about Bloggers are so wrong. At least I feel that I have in some small way helped dispel the myth people have about the need for civil discourse and "net neturality" and the wonderful friends and they can make while educating themselves about what is happening in the world. Again great post!

re: Moussaoui, in that court, a TV producer had planned, he would run out of the court room, he would signal to someone standing across the way. Marshall service caught wind of that and the person across the street was probably lucky he wasn't shot.

1. Curious on what basis would Marshalls shoot someone receiving a secret signal? 2. My impression was this kind of Paul Revere signaling is common. Is it?

More generally, agree with the invaluableness of EW and other trial bloggers' efforts.

Also, EW your "not the poodle, but the basketball player" remark made my day. 'cause funny, and 'cause evidence that the blogosphere is an alternate to celebrity-obsessed news.

The judge knows good bloggers, YAYYYYYY!

I find it interesting that Reggie was troubled by Fitz's press conference. Why? Because it was a departure from norms? Because he disapproves of any prosecutor going before the press before a trial? Certainly it had to be one of the most disciplined press conferences ever - Fitz repeatedly declining to go "outside the four corners of the indictment."

Sparkles - I was somewhat perplexed by that as well. Best guess is he just doesn't think prosecutors ought to be holding pressers at all. Normally, I pretty much agree with that thought as stated on one of the other conference threads. No rule is perfect though, and I think the very restrained statement Fitzgerald made was appropriate in order to tamp down several memes that were running out of control. Quite frankly, the things he tried to clear up benefitted both the prosecution, defense and took some of the heat off of the administration and other members of it. I can't say the press conference was absolutely necessary, but I think it stayed within the facts contained in the four corners of the indictment and other already public information and prejudiced no one. I can see Walton's point here, but the other side of the coin as well. My guess is Reggie was not saying Fitz did anything wrong, just that it was not critically necessary. I can agree with that, but I think some good was served by Fitzgerals's presser. As that was about it out of him, you sure can't say Fitz was a media hound here or played out any stake in the press like Nifong and others.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad