Scooter Libby Sentencing Hearing Transcript

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 04:39:08 PM EST
Tags: Libby Trial (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A million thanks to Jason Leopold of Truthout who just sent me a copy of the 103 page Scooter Libby sentencing transcript he purchased from the court reporter.

If a major media outlet doesn't publish it, I'm not going to post the whole thing or share it because this is how court reporters make their money and as a practicing lawyer, I don't want to break any rules.

I will read it late tonight and post pertinent excepts. If there's any part you particularly would like to read, let me know in the comments.

In other Libby news, via How Appealing, Judge Walton is allowing an amicus brief to be filed regarding the appeal bond issue. His order is here (pdf) and Howard says to check out the disparaging footnote.

The amicus brief by law profs is here.

< Paris Hilton Ordered Back to Jail: Live Thread | Presidential Nonsupport >

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.

Scooter Libby Sentencing Hearing Transcript | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Amicus brief of conservative profs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Mimir on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:37:59 PM EST

Funny we don't see Professors Akhil Amar and Laurence Tribe signing on, despite the brief's citations to their work.

: EXACTLY! (none / 0) (#9)
by the rainnn on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:42:09 AM EST

. . .they mis-treat laurence tribe's
thoughts and past arguments -- indeed,
rather egregiously, to boot. they de-
ceptively suggest he would agree with them. . .
and so -- i have offered a few thoughts
on the very scant "merits" of
the gaggle of graybeards'
amici filing of yesterday
[still in process, though]. . .
p e a c e

Wow... (none / 0) (#2)
by SeanSatori on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 05:59:41 PM EST

Reading that footnote, I'm not sure I'd even go through with filing the Amicus Brief. You can tell that Judge Walton is on his last two nerves when it comes to this case.

judge walton is a stone-cold-GOD! (none / 0) (#3)
by the rainnn on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:36:43 PM EST

. . .a gaggle (that's an even dozen, in
non-legal parlance!) of law professors
<strike>just got paid a pile to</strike> have asked
to weigh-in on scooter libby's pending
motion for bail, while his appeals are
handled by the courts. . .

and, of course -- the aim is to suggest
that it is a "close question" as to whether
judge walton's ruling -- sustaining patrick
fitzgerald's authority under the independent
counsel statutes, was correct. . .

forget the "all the grand-standing <strike>big
money can buy</strike> academics love" facets
to this motion -- and simply focus on that clearly-
well-grounded, solid and street-wise judge -- reggie walton. . .

i am in of judge walton. and i am
disgusted that these professors want
to make scalia's dissent (that is,
not binding law) the basis
for the assertion of a "close question". . .

arguing for the change of existing
law is not the same as presenting a close,
or conflicting set of cases, under unsettled
law. . . scalia's dissent in morrison has
no effect whatsover as law. nor does this
largely spurrious amicus motion, drawn with all
the <strike>resources of the r.n.c./scooter
libby defense fund could buy</strike> legal accumen
mustered by these wise-old-graybeards.

here endeth my rant.

Sorry, the devil made me do it.. (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:01:47 AM EST

Thank goodness.


he he! -- jimakapp -- good one! (none / 0) (#7)
by the rainnn on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:16:58 AM EST

. . . so so sorry if the
snark is hard on your eyes. . .

i did notice that none of
you -- and your buddies -- rose
to defend dick cheney's comments
on scooter's sentencing -- and i
guess that is, in and of itself,
some progress. . .

for like this silly amici filing,
there is little to recommend there. . .

the silliest line, in their "brief":

judge walton's ruling at trial "presents
only one side of the story. . ."

uh -- yeah -- the actual law side. . .
yep, the ACTUAL law on the matter, NOT the
"oh-i-wish-law-the-actually-could-be-what-
justice-scalia's-dissent-in-morrison. . ."
prayed it one day, might be -- is what we look
to when deciding issues at trial. . .

s h e e e s h.

these academics quote far more
law review articles than cases. . .

because the case LAW doesn't
go their way -- the armchair
views of the law reviews, otoh. . .

here endeth THIS rant -- courtesy o' jim. . .


: rainin (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:35:22 PM EST

Well, having a life means that I do things besides blog, so I guess I am double guilty. First I didn't read his comments, so I didn't comment on them...
I understand that doesn't always stop many of your Buds..... ;-)
A picture is worth a thousand words...10,000 if they come from rannin.

Wow... (none / 0) (#4)
by Teresa on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:47:23 PM EST

That was one of the best put-downs I've ever read. Go Judge!

That may be (none / 0) (#6)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:25:06 AM EST

the best footnote ever in a court order.

I'm not sure he has the power to follow through on his threat to appoint them, even if some of them are members of the bar of his court, but I'd like to see him do it and force them to either take a case or look like hypocrites.

(Actually, it might be very good for some of them to represent a 19 year old crack dealer from Anacostia.)

: to be fair here. . . (none / 0) (#8)
by the rainnn on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:21:47 AM EST

i do know that professor
dershowitz has taken several
unpopular cases, some deep
into the appellate courts,
all for free. . .
and to be clear, i too, do
not believe any of them actually
were paid for the use of their
names, in cash. . . i do think
each of them seeks notoriety, and
increased "stature", in and around
their respective communities of
association, by appearing as amici. . .
as to whether any of the others take
any (or many) pro bono cases -- i am
genuinely skeptical. . . (most of all,
of one robert "slip and fall" bork.)

Jerealyn (none / 0) (#10)
by Sailor on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:04:08 PM EST

I'd love to see Walton's sentencing statement.