Good Morning, Washington

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:09:02 AM EST
Tags: Libby Trial (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Don't change that dial. Marcy and I are at the Plame House in D.C., getting ready to head to the courthouse for the Scooter Libby trial.

Marcy will be live-blogging the testimony at Firedoglake from the media courtroom while I will be in the actual courtroom, taking hand-written notes (no laptops allowed there.) I'll have a wrap-up of the day's coverage tonight at Firedoglake and Huffpo, and eventually here.

If I get online at lunch, I'll post some snippets as an update here. Also check out MediaBloggers for some live coverage.

Cheney former press aide Cathie Martin will be first up today, finishing her testimony from last week. Then it's Ari Fleischer's turn. The Judge hasn't yet ruled on whether he will allow Fitz to ask him why he sought immunity.

I'm really looking forward to this. A big thanks to TChris who has been posting other news here while I've been traveling and settling in.

< Alone in a Room With 8 Men | Innocence Commissions: A First Step >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Good Morning, Washington | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"This trial (none / 0) (#1)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 08:39:57 AM EST

is a mockery. It's a travesty. It's a mockery of a travesty of a mockery."

Woody Allen

Will Cheney, like Hoover, testify in disguise? And if so, will chiffon make him look fat(ter)?

Fitz? (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:42:47 AM EST

allow Fitz to ask him why he sought immunity.

Did you mean Wells?

No she meant fitzgerald. (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:52:58 AM EST

The defense wants to use the fact Fleischer sought and received immunity to impeach his testimony by showing possible motive for him to shade his testimony. It argues that it should be allowed to go beyond mere existence of immunity and delve into the the details of the agreement between Fleischer and the prosecution to show the extent of benefit to Fleischer.

Fitzgerald in response argued that if the defense is allowed to do that he should then be allowed to explore why Fleischer felt he needed immunity.

The defense argued that should not be allowed because it claims that the jury might conclude that if Fleischer felt he needed immunity because he had violated the law by making disclosures then it is more likely that that libby broke the law too.

It would seem to me that the peoper course is to give both sides full latitude (assuming the defense opens the door by impeaching with the nimmunity issue) but properly give the jury a limiting instructiojn that it is all being admitted solely as to its relevance to Fleischer's credibility and is in no way evidence of libb'y culpability for the charged offenses or any other offenses.

good call (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:07:01 AM EST

The judge ruled this morning that Fitz can ask Ari why he sought out legal counsel...because he was concerned of possible criminal liability...and the judge will give a limiting instruction to the jury telling them only to consider it as to Ari.


does that include, (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:19 AM EST

(or can you tell yet) whether that includes the stuff about him freaking over reading a Post article which stated certain statutes that could be involved carried the DP?


: nothing about specific statutes or which laws (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:04:40 PM EST

he was concerned he may have violated. Only he thought he might be in "big trouble".

Libby Trial (none / 0) (#6)
by wlgriffi on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:08:30 PM EST

Can't someone find a person with court stenographic ability to record verbtim what is going on. The disjointed reports by bloggers is confusing.

Well, how much are you willing to spend? (none / 0) (#7)
by scribe on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:30:57 PM EST

People with the ability to be court stenographers, do that for a living. FWIW, they charge by the page - $6 and up per page (I don't buy dailies unless I absolutely have to) for the kind of rapid-fire stuff we're getting. And, at the rate it seems the questioning and answering is going (pretty fast), we're probably getting about 300-400 pages of transcript per day.

So, unless you've got a couple thou a day to drop on transcripts (which the reporters will gladly sell to anyone, since this is a public trial), you and we will all have to deal with live-blogging and all the attendant confusion.

And, FWIW, court stenographers are almost always independent contractors whose income relies not on a government paycheck, but rather on the litigants (or occasionally the press) buying their transcript from them. There is almost never a government paycheck for the reporter. If there were, think of the potential for conflict of interest when the Government is a litigant - there'd be strong pressure on the reporter to record something other than that which hurt the gov't side.


the court has ruled (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:06:13 PM EST

the media cannot buy daily transcripts because it might interfere with Libby's right to a fair trial. Marcy Wheeler's live blogging of the testimony is great. Check out firedoglake.com


: thanks for the post (none / 0) (#12)
by scribe on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:12:25 PM EST

I wasn't aware the Court had put media purchases of transcripts out of bounds, though it makes perfect sense in a high-profile case like this one.

Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:07:37 PM EST

links must be in html format, use the link button -- your last comment got deleted for skewing the site.

link button? (none / 0) (#13)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:19:33 PM EST

Showing my lack of familiarity, I don't know where to find the link button. It was simply a link to a vacancy announcement for an official court reporter for EDNY showing that many are gov't employees and pretty well compensated ones (deservedly so) and they get transcript fees in addition to salary (although i think there is some sort of formulaic set-off).

now i got it (none / 0) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:21:55 PM EST

er, maybe not (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:22:43 PM EST

: of the six buttons (none / 0) (#16)
by scribe on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:28:04 PM EST

it's the fourth from the left:
B = bold
I = italic
U = underline
email
blockquote

Didn't work (none / 0) (#18)
by Peaches on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:51:06 PM EST

Edger Is very good at giving instructions on how to link and walking you through it.

Perhaps he would be so gracious to offer his services.

Edger?

links (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:18:16 PM EST

Here's a one page tutorial on How to Make Hyperlinks.


With the buttons above the comment box (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:35:31 PM EST

Let's say you want to make a link to, for example: http://www.talkleft.com

Type the word: TalkLeft (or any other word)

Highlight the word you typed by holding down your left mouse button and dragging the cursor across the word.

Then click the URL button and either type http://www.talkleft.com into the dialog box that appears. (or paste some other URL into that box, that you've copied from your IE address bar.

Then click OK on that dialog box.

You'll see the word Talkleft appear in blue like this: Talkleft


The URL button is (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:37:03 PM EST

the one that looks like a little chain link.


You can also use brackets (none / 0) (#31)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:30:50 PM EST

On scoop sites such as this one, Dailykos, Mydd etc., you can do links as follows

[url link name] or [ talk left's url space Talk Left] which give you this: talk left

I didn't know that (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:45:33 PM EST

That's cool. Thx, Molly!


: very cool (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:48:28 PM EST

well, it's not that interesting a link (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:59:09 PM EST

Just a posting for a ct. rep showing the pay-scale is about $72K to $87K (+ transcript fees). As I said, they deserve it. Real court reporting, as opposed to steno-masking, is a difficult skill, and good ones can be hard to find. the ones in federal court are obviously usually at the top of the heap and paid accordingly. My initial poinbt was just that scribe misspoke saying most are indep. contractors in the federal system. Most of the ones I knowe get a salary (and benefits)

: OK. (none / 0) (#22)
by scribe on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:06:04 PM EST

Correction accepted. I work most of the time in State Court, and that's the deal there.

I'm no Edger (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:01:50 PM EST

But I do have the following saved in my "Drafts" folder...

To link, with apologies if it's too basic:

-highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

-copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

-come back to TL and write something in the "Comments:" box.

-highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

-click the "URL" button above the "Comments:" box, it's the button that has an icon that looks like some links of a chain.

-hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v".

-click "OK."

-click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

-if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link are a different color from the rest of the text and are underlined like a link should be - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:"
box.

Like this (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:04:30 PM EST

Decon's link.

Oops, sorry, the link won't be underlined, just a diff color (blue on my computer)...

And (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:06:17 PM EST

Decon's link doesnt' seem to want to work. Oh well, I tried.

Here's your link (I hope!) (none / 0) (#25)
by ding7777 on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:21:59 PM EST

US Court House Vacancies

Well (none / 0) (#28)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:56:45 PM EST

IANAL but it seems that Fleischer has outed Libby and his MO for lying. Libby lied to cover the fact that he disclosed classified information about a CIA agent to a member of the WH staff that did not have a "need to know" position. Even the DCI cannot be told of covert agents unless there is a need to know. Surely LIBBY did not, and yet not only did he know but he passed it on, then lied when asked about it by Justice, which is the ultimate error that (hopefully) will expose the WH's pittifully vengeful activities to more criminal indictments.

I must admit that my initial reaction to the upcoming Libby trial was peppered with yawns. But thanks to Jeralyn, and FDL et al, I realize that this laborious process could possibly lead to some justice for these homicidal buffoons.

Well (none / 0) (#29)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:04:43 PM EST

IANAL but it seems that Fleischer has outed Libby and his MO for lying. Libby lied to cover the fact that he disclosed classified information about a CIA agent to a member of the WH staff that did not have a "need to know" position. Even the DCI cannot be told of covert agents unless there is a need to know. Surely LIBBY did not, and yet not only did he know but he passed it on, then lied when asked about it to the DOJ, which is the ultimate error that (hopefully) will expose the WH's pittifully vengeful activities to more criminal indictments.

I must admit that my initial reaction to the upcoming Libby trial was peppered with yawns. But thanks to Jeralyn, and FDL et al, I have become very interested in the commentary and transcripts. I realize that maybe, just maybe, this laborious process might possibly lead to some justice for these homicidal buffoons and for the victims of their lies and deceptions.

Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#30)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:05:27 PM EST