Posted on 02/14/2007 11:50:23 AM PST by Jack Black
The reason you probably got vapors...is from having to read the testimony on your head...because I put the afternoon and morning sessions backwards!!!
LOL
If Libby gets a list like that....just think what Pres. Bush gets!!
That thought is quite.......daunting.
One reason I despise the fact that the judge ruled out any "memory expert" testimony is that I know that my brain functions much like what has been attributed to Scooter Libby. It is a REAL FACT for people like me that Scooter's testimony could well be mixed up by trying to attach a name (i.e., Russert) to statements that are recalled very accurately but maybe someone else said them so many months ago. I generally have great recall for ideas and arguments, and exact quotations in relation to those ideas. However, I very frequently have no recollection of specific people in relation to those ideas and arguments and quotes. In other words, I understand exactly how Scooter got into this predicament because I do the same thing all the time (fortunately not with any legal jeopardy!). When I used to work in a very busy office, I frequently got mixed up about WHO said WHAT (even though I had very detailed recall of much or all that was said, by SOMEONE. If you asked me questions about work conversations held several months or years ago, I could provide all sorts of detail about them but would get mixed up on WHO said what. In fact, this just happened to me today (fortunately on a trivial matter).
So many people believe that the Constitution and amendments afford rights to the government. The Federal Government has duties and responsibilities. The people have rights, priveleges, and freedoms.
Yes, what you describe is quite common.
Another thing that is common is that people add details to vague memories, which of course makes them much more unreliable.
What is very uncommon is that you suddenly start to remember things better and better until you are absolutely certain what you said and not said 3 years later but wasn't able to say at all for certain a couple of months after the event (think RUSSERT).
I'm thoroughly confused now and don't have any idea how this is going to turn out. I wish Fitzgerald would be disbarred for this travesty of justice he has pursued.
I agree with you...
I think all of us use our own "triggers" for memory...and I am sure there are other instances that mask those triggers...illness or other things.
A memory expert could perhaps point these things out...IMHO>
Crazy! I also was dumbfounded that they are willing to allow classified info to be presented IF Libby testifies, but somehow it can't be presented if he DOESN'T testify. The 'you have a right to remain silent' (by not testifying) now means 'we will not let you defend yourself unless you talk.
Morning Intelligence Briefing?
I agree, but with the selective way justice is meted out to conservatives I wouldn't be surprised if the judge allowed Ditzferald to appeal a not guilty verdict. 'What, double Jepordy? That don't apply to conservatives,' the judge will declare.
I think he does, but I can't remember his name.
Wouldn't that be something. Nothing surpises to the lows democrats will go, especially in prosecuting non-crimes against others that do not have their party affiliation for political purposes.
I thought judges were not supposed to have ANY understanding as to who is to testify.
LOL I'm late, I'm late! ;-)
LOL Or maybe we could just look through that big mirror! ;-D
Maybe you suffer from what I have........CRAFT....Can't Remember A Freaking Thing.
Fitzgerald is a disgrace.
He knew, or should have known, on Day One and after a couple of phone calls that no crime had been committed in the "leaking" of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame's name.
We also know now that Fitzgerald found out very early on that it was Armitage who was the initial source of the "leak". Yet Fitzgerald wasted millions of taxpayer dollars by continuing an "investigation" into an alleged crime he knew never happened, until he was finally able to grab what Mark Levin referred to as "low lying fruit" - - a crappy, shaky, irrelevant indictment of a lower level guy that arose only through the process of the investigation. And Fitzgerald only came up with this silly "low lying fruit" indictment in order to justify his costly, drawn-out, pathetic "investigation".
Justice Department corruption doesn't get any worse than Fitzgerald unless you count Judge Walton, who was apparently too much of a coward to laugh Fitzgerald and his crappy indictment out of his courtroom.... on Day One.
LOL...I love that.
I was going to say that I will have to remember that one but........
LOL
I just heard Sissy Chrissy and David Shuster talking about the trial.
According to the two of them...Libby will be going down for 4 1/2 years...and they "can't believe he is that loyal to Cheney, to take a prison sentence that long for him".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.