Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LIBBY FILINGS from 08/16 & 08/17

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:26 AM
Original message
LIBBY FILINGS from 08/16 & 08/17
the second set of documents looks interesting to my novice eyes. :donut:

08/16/2006 Order - 1 pages

08/17/2006 Protective Order - 2 pages


as always the rest are in the vault here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. re: 8/17
Is Libby going to twist, slowly in the wind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. will he twist
peacably, doing soft time, looking forward to a lucrative retirement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. It's interesting
to speculkate. My guess is that there are going to be two interesting things take place in regard to the pre-trial hearings by Thanksgiving. Then, between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mr. Libby will make a deal with the prosecution. He has no concerns regarding his comfort after the time served; he does have concerns with the amount of time he faces. As each seemingly small ruling is made, he is aware that not only does he face surer and surer conviction, but his options for appeal are wilting on the vine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. H2O Man,
will be doing one of your great posts detailing what these filings might mean?

I haven't read them yet, but your insight always helps me understand their context better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. upsy daisy
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. Little bastard has been "owned;" cannot use gray mail!
:rofl:

It looks like his trial might actually go forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, Well, Well
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:43 AM by Me.
the long silence is broken. Good to have some action. Thanks STB.

*shadow government*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks for the latest filings, K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
10. kickety. . . . . .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. What do you think it means?
(the second doc, that is)

I have a theory but I'm still reading some prior docs to see if it all hangs together. Just wondering, in the meantime, what you think the significance might be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Firedoglake
has a post on this here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/19/libby-judge-restr...

Basically, Reggie Walton is saying that Libby doesn't get EVERYTHING he wants, due to the sensitive nature of the documents, and "...that to reveal information contained therein would be potentially harmful to national security."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Thanks, Terre. I am still waiting for the OP "stopthebleeding" to
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 03:37 AM by Jazz2006
I very much appreciate your response, Terre, and I appreciate the link. I always respect firedoglake's legal analyses and very often (but not always) agree with same :)

In this instance, though, I am waiting for the OP "stop the bleeding" to respond because my theory is much more complex than "Libby doesn't get everything he wants" as my analysis is also connected to another related DU thread re the alleged Rove "sealed v. sealed" indictment. That's why I was asking the OP what s/he thinks it means before getting into my overlapping analysis, because if s/he thinks they are wholly unrelated, there is no point in posting it here (although it might make an interesting new thread tomorrow) but if s/he thinks they are related, then I would like to know that before I post it because of its length and the overlap between the two.

No point in posting something complex if the thread doesn't call for it, after all :)

But again, thank you for your response. Much appreciated.

Edit for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. you have my attention
I am very curious to hear your analysis

I myself do not have a theory, I am just a simpleton that tries to keep track of this case, and have a central resource for others such as yourself to resort for research and analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. OIC
Okie dokie then. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. what does
in camera mean?

i understand ex parte to mean consultation with the judge in the case.

thanks
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. In camera means
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 03:46 AM by Jazz2006
out of view of the public (i.e. in this case, not in a courtroom open to the public, which is the usual default position). The motion likely took place in the judge's chambers.

And since it was also Ex parte - which means without notice required to the opposing party and without the other party (in this case, the defence since it was Fitzgerald's motion) being entitled to notice of it, without being entitled to respond to it, and without being able to attend or argue against it - it means that the motion was probably heard by Reggie in his chambers with just Fitz and perhaps a court reporter present (and, assuming there was a court reporter present, the record will not be made public at this point, if ever) and that the defence did not have any opportunity to respond to it or argue against it, etc.


Edit for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. Thank you StB!
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 12:38 AM by Viva_La_Revolution
I'd almost forgotten about this. Thanks for the memory kick!

edit: so many scandals... so little time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. K&R, Thanks, STB! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC