Scooter Libby Sentencing Hearing Transcript

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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
    here endeth my rant.

    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
    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.