"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is,"
Reality Check: The Governmnet isn't ON TRIAL! Only the defendent is on trial, so of course only the defendent has trial rights. The Government has a responsibility to follow the law and behave ethically, which they have manafestly failed to do in this case.
The sickness of our legal system is incapsulated in the judges remark. The legal system is not a football game, with both sides entitled to the same rules.
The legal system is weighted for the defense, as well it should be. If Libby loses he goes to jail, loses his ability to earn a living, and pays crushing fines.
If the Prosecution loses Fitz goes on to the next case, goes home to his wife, and probably gets a big raise from his boss for dragging Bush through the muck with such creative prosecution.
In DC, they may end up putting the defense team in jail too for having the gall to defend someone from the administration.
Judge is pissed the trial is going too well for Libby.
Troublesome Scooter Ping ~~!
The way I read the strategy is that the defense knows he's cooked and the judge might give them a better deal on grounds for appeal and a consequent delay in any sentencing.
The issue here is to stay out of prison.
There's always the outside chance of a post-term pardon from George W. You Know Who.
Fine that the judge makes stupid decisions....makes the appeal much easier to win....if the appeals judge is sane....big if, I guess.
I guess this Judge never heard of the old saying: "Don't ASSUME anything. When you do, you make an ASS of U and ME! Why would a Judge made a ruling based on something he assumed would take place? It was always Libby's perogative to tesify or not to testify. It was also reported that V.P. Cheney would take the stand on behalf of Libby. That didn't happen either, so how did this numbnuts make the determination that Libby would definitely be taking the stand? What a moron this guy is. Let me guess...he's a Clinton appointee?
Wait a minute... Fitz said that he had an agreement with Libby (not on paper mind you), that if Libby wouldn't testify, he couldn't bring in CIPA evidence. That's a BS call on Fitz and lowdown... that wasn't the agreement.
Uhh... Why in the world does the judge have an opinion one way or the other on who might or might not be called to testify?
He is not allowing Libby's defense to put on evidence that Libby was dealing with a number of very weighty, life and death type issues, UNLESS LIBBY GETS ON THE STAND AND TESTIFIES THAT THOSE THINGS WERE IMPORTANT!!!!!!
WHAT A BUFFOON!
Please see posts #16 and 19....for today's testimony...but I got it backwards.
Post #19 has the morning testimony...and #16 has this afternoon's.
I added it to your thread...because it is the most recent thread about this case...I hope you don't mind.
Another idiot judge trying to make a name for himself in the public's eye. Sheesh!
Fitz doesn't have a wife. Or kids.
It appears the judge thinks he had a deal to deprive Libby of his 5th amendment rights. Isn't it against the law for the government to deprive one of the right to stay silent and not incriminate yourself. How can that be defended in the Supreme Court an arguement?
What an idiotic thing for a judge, of all people, to say! Shows he doesn't have even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence.
You're right when you say:
Reality Check: The Governmnet isn't ON TRIAL! Only the defendent is on trial, so of course only the defendent has trial rights. The Government has a responsibility to follow the law and behave ethically...
This tit-for-tat move to deny Libby his right to have relevant evidence admitted is unbelievably petty --on the part of both the judge and Fitzgerald.
These two are clearly in cahoots to railroad Libby.
Mistrial.
I hope I'm wrong but I think Scooter's toast.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
So, Russert is a liar. And yeah, that matters.
Even I - - no law schooler - - am aware that witnesses are not allowed lawyers with them when they testify before a grand jury.
Sounds like Judge Walton is worried that he won't have much to say at the nexr COCKTAIL PARTY!!! He wanted FITZY to ask about how BIG A THREAT were these THREATS that are out there EVERY DAY!!! What idiots.
Does Fitzy have a WIFE??? I don't think so.