Libby Loses Another Ruling!

[Me.]

Judge rejects reporter CIA leak case subpoena

By James Vicini
Reuters
Friday, May 26, 2006; 1:20 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A judge rejected a request by former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Friday to force ex-New York Times reporter Judith Miller to turn over all her notes, telephone records and appointment calendar.

After reviewing the documents in private, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a request by Miller's attorneys to throw out Libby's subpoena.

He ruled the requests for Miller's appointment calendar and her telephone records from June 7 to July 14 in 2003 "appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition."

Libby's lawyers already have parts of two notebooks that Miller gave special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald about the CIA official whose identity was disclosed, her diplomat husband and his trip to Africa.

But Libby's lawyers wanted the entire notebooks, without any deletions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052600986.html

*shadow government*

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. This isn't any kind of "loss"

It's filings, pre-trial stuff that goes on all the time, the first steps in discovery.

it's hardly news, and it is meaningless.

Relax.

When there's any kind of meaningful news in any of these matters, the only one you can trust or believe will be Patrick Fitzgerald, standing there, telling the world what has happened.

Until then, it's nothing but routine paperwork, and hardly worth noticing, especially if you're not a lawyer connected with the case in some way.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Me.]

4. Then I'm Sure Libby Won't Mind

Not getting something that is meaningless. He can relax now.

*shadow government*

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Libby doesn't even see those filings

He's the client, not a lawyer working on the case, or a judge or even a judge's clerk.

You don't understand any of this, do you?

The pity might be that you're not willing to read what you'd have to read in order to understand it.

OK, got it.

<click>

[lonestarnot]

9. Leftie you are getting a pile on, but I've been around here

long enough to know you can hold your own. Law is a difficult animal for a lay person.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Yeah, and we've been around this before,

but my Ignore list is longer than Fuckface's Xmas card list, so, you know, I don't see what those folks write. Why would I want to?

They're not relevant, anyway.

I try to explain. Some people see that as a kind of arrogance, which just demonstrates their own lack of confidence, educability, and understanding. Tells everything about them, nothing about me, except that I know something they don't and when I try to explain, they go into a defensive posture that's hysterical.

That's all right. It's a message board, but how kind of you, lonestar.

No, you are not getting the pussycat for this one. It's too early. Maybe later.

heh heh heh

[lonestarnot]

36. Well I'm ready now! Just belted one of my own 105 today here in the

lovely brown scorched earth part of U.S.A.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. 105?

Oh, well, then, you've EARNED the Pussycat today:

[lonestarnot]

60. Woohooo! Just woke up and what a way to start the day! Think I will

just stick to this :donut: for now.

[JuniperLea]

16. Condescension is the most difficult animal of them all

I think the knowledge would be good to have around if it wasn't wrapped in such an abrasive package. If all lawyers were right all of the time... well, draw your own conclusion.

[lonestarnot]

37. hmmmmf.

[hang a left]

26. Oh please

Libby is an attorney. I am sure he reads all the motions and the filings. I am sure he is very active in his defense, what else does he have to do. I have been involved in civil and business related litigation and I read everything that my lawyers prepare and file. Do you really know what you are talking about??? That is the real question here.

[gkhouston]

31. but he's just a simple cave-man lawyer

who can't remember what happened when. ;-)

[WhiteTara]

7. the part that is interesting is that we can take

comfort in Libby's absolute misery in this. Everything he tries and loses causes him more sleepless nights trying to figure out another way out of his hubris. Of course there is none. He can only go through it. Even if he gets pardoned in the end, he will have still had this misery. It is little enough and cold comfort for the public that has been served so poorly by its servant.

That's why we get excited. I do like your take on the law and its great to read your posts. I have no real experience with the law, but IMHO law is also about emotion.
:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. For spectators, the law is quite great theater sometimes,

that's for sure, and thanks for the kind words.

One of the things you might be interested in knowing is this:

Have you ever known anyone who was under indictment?

Probably not. Being arrested and having to go to court is a very different thing from being under indictment, as I'm sure you know.

But, if you've ever known anyone under indictment, you would soon learn that that person can think of nothing else - no matter what demeanor they may try to cast out to their loved ones, their peers, the world - and nothing can help them with it.

There is only the indictment, the trial, the possibility of incarceration, and that is all they can think of.

Imagine the most compulsive/obsessed person you know.

OK?

Now multiply that ten thousand times over, and you have a small glimpse into the psyche of a person who is under indictment.

Someone just asked me what I thought about the appealability of the Lay/Skilling verdict, and I said, "I don't know and I don't care. They're convicted, they're caught now in the system, and that will be what they are forever. That's good enough for me right now."

Of course, I'll enjoy it when they're hauled off to the slammer, but, until then, it's good enough for me just the way it is.

[WhiteTara]

11. my sentiments entirely

they will forever stink of fear.

[hang a left]

17. For a DC lawyer you sure have a lot of work hours to burn.

Aren't you ever in court? With a client? Working on a case?

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Most lawyers wouldn't advertise it either.

[JuniperLea]

28. Wow... good point n/t

[dogday]

30. Most Lawyers have better things

to do then post on a forum on the internet... But maybe not, I don't know :shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

50. She already told us: She writes fiction.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

23. It may be routine to the attorneys, but it's not to the general public

and that's to whom the story is written - not the legal community.

I was a reporter for 12 years, eight of which I spent covering the court system. I would have written this story, too, because the public has the right to know. Afterall, Libby was in their employ when these alleged crimes occurred.

Now, whether we should get all worked up about it is a different issue, but, believe me OLL, some of us on this board know a lot about legal filings, rulings and, gasp, can even understand legaleze.

[troubleinwinter]

33. "hardly worth noticing, especially if you're not a lawyer "

"stuff....meaningless.... routine..."

Most of us are not lawyers, but we have decided to notice, pay attention, follow this issue, and learn as we go, if you don't fucking mind. You appear to mind.

[fooj]

38. You know what they say...

Opinions are like assholes...we've all got one! :rofl:

Lucky us!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Sure It Is. He Wanted Her Full Notes. He Didn't Get Them.

Don't need to be a lawyer to figure out that simple concept in my opinion.

No one claimed it was some trial altering loss, but it was a loss nonetheless. He wanted something to be allowed, and he was denied. He lost his request. Pretty simple really.

[Catrina]

58. Had you been following this case you would know that Fitz has said quite

a lot already ~ enough, in fact, to make many of your statements quite puzzling considering your profession. It seems Mr. Libby is in deep trouble, according to Mr. Fitzgerald himself. As you say, we must pay attention only to what he has to say. We have been doing that. I wonder why you haven't yet feel qualified to make the dismissive statements you make.

Poor Libby, his fishing expeditions have yielded very little for him, but an incredible amount of information for the public. He has given Fitz the opportunity to make public much that was not previously known. Otoh, it's quite possible that Libby wanted the public to know what we now know from Fitz himself, regarding some of the evidence he has regarding Libby's bosses. Fitz has told us that Libby didn't get much help from his bosses after they got him trouble.

When Fitz speaks, we listen. I would suggest that you do the same ~

[Igel]

3. Mixed bag.

This wasn't a 'victory', either:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-CIA-Leak.html?hp&ex=1148702400&en=7ba138cd581446ab&ei=5094&partner=homepage
'A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a former White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.

'The order by U.S. District Reggie B. Walton also said the New York Times might have to turn over some information but reduced the scope of documents the newspaper and other news organizations would have to provide to lawyers for the defendant, former top vice presidential aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby.

'Citing a lack of relevancy, Walton said that Judith Miller, a former Times reporter, doesn't have to provide two notebooks, her phone records or appointment calendars to lawyers for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.'

Discovery. Try to get everything you possibly can in hopes of bolstering your case.

[gratuitous]

6. Looks like the judge knocked the fishing pole out of his hands

I suppose there might be more stuff in Miller's notebooks and calendars that might interest Scooter or his attorneys. Unfortunately, it's apparently not germane to the case at hand.

Scooter can cross "blackmail" off his list of defense tactics.

[gkhouston]

19. gosh darn, now we'll never know

whether Judy dots her i's will little hearts. ;-)

Looks like Scooter's lawyers will have to go digging through someone else's papers to find a scapegoat.

[porphyrian]

12. Aww! Poor criminal!

He has to find another way to delay the inevitable...

[H2O Man]

14. Very important victory.

This is a very significant ruling, for a number of reasons. First, along with the 5-17 agreement that Judge Waltn would review the New York Times and Time records, it represents the latest in the series of pre-trial decisions going against Team Libby.

This restricts the areas where the defense will be able to attempt to distract and confuse a jury, should the case actually go to trial. It is important to note that Team Libby will be telling I. Liar Libby about each of these pre-trial decisions, as is their duty, and Libby -- an attorney himself -- will understand that his chances of not being convicted are being reduced with each step in the process.

Also importantly, this case did pose a significant threat to the concept of a free press, unlike the neocon/AIPAC spy scandal. Judge Walton's ruling shows a healthy respect for Amendment 1.

All people who want to see justice in the Plame scandal, and who appreciate the Bill of Rights, can take great pleasure in this decision. Poor little Scooter! He and his fan club must be very unhappy!

[northamericancitizen]

15. I am ever so glad to read you H2O. Salute!

[JuniperLea]

20. Brilliant deduction, and very, very well put!

Thank you! You have let the oxygen return to this thread!

[H2O Man]

22. I'm reading through

the 40-page decision now. It's an important document. Judge Walton appears to be very fair, as far as recognizing that Inmate, er, Scooter Libby has rights, and he is attempting to balance Libby's with those of the journalists involved. It's a strange case, made perhaps more so by the curious role some journalists played.

Judge Walton reviewed Cooper's papers, and found an (unidentified) area where Cooper made two distinct claims in two writings. Certainly, Team Libby is entitled to that information. Judge Walton recognizes that right.

In many other areas, Team Libby loses. The judge is keeping the process focused. That is, of course, the most important thing.

[JuniperLea]

25. I just breathed a sigh of relief!

That is one of the things I always liked about Fitz as well. Fair. They have to be fair and honest or too many things can be contested I'm sure.

Libby must be writhing. He and the rest of BushCo have had carte blanche for so long that to actually be held accountable, and to not be given everything he asks for must be infuriating.

Thanks again for the indepth... refreshing.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. Thanks. This ruling felt "big" to me also.

My only regret is that Judy Miller seemed to be hinting last week that she'd let a lot more out of the bag than team Libby wanted to hear if they forced her hand. Then again, her notes aren't relevant since she didn't write a Plame article, but her testimony may be. I dunno. I guess I'll have to wait and see. :popcorn:

[H2O Man]

27. They will still put Judith

on the stand, if the case goes to trial. But a growing number of people anticipate Libby making a deal before it goes to trial. As his attorneys review each step in the pre-trial hearings with him, Libby will recognize that it is in his best interests to plea.

Keep in mind that Mr. Fitzgerald made clear that he will likely put VP Cheney on the stand. A rational person could conclude that Scooter has elected to "fall on his sword" to protect the VP. Now, Mr. Fitzgerald makes clear that he will force Dick Cheney into a hot seat: will the vice president attempt to protect his top aide, and risk increasing his own problems? Or will he recognize that Mr. Fitzgerald's authority, and increase Scooter's problems?

[Mandate My Ass]

29. Dick Cheney will do what he always does

Look out for No. 1. LOL. This is getting verrrrrrry interesting.

Thanks, H2O Man. :)

[troubleinwinter]

32. I always appreciate your interpretations and explanations, H2O. Thank you

[Jazz2006]

54. Just reading it now. Here's a link to the decision ...

for anyone else who wants to read it.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/Walton/2006-MS-123~9:55:58~5-26-2006-a.pdf

Edit: for some reason, it wouldn't load properly with Adobe v. 6 but it works fine with Adobe v. 7.

[Jazz2006]

57. Can you elaborate, H2OMan?

First, let me say that in the relatively short period of time that I've been here (a couple of months), I've come to enjoy reading your posts as they tend to be thoughtful and reasoned.

I am curious about your take on this decision and the way you have described it above.

The decision overall seems to me to have been neither a victory or a defeat for either side.

Libby got some of what he was after, and the respondents got some of what they were after.

As for the first amendment issue - which was the most, perhaps only, important issue in the decision - the rest appearing to be rather run of the mill discovery arguments that are made and played out every day, but without such high profile :) - the court went through the case law, pointed out the uncertainty that exists in certain aspects of it, made a reasonable interpretation of it, followed the precedents, made no startling pronouncements on those fronts, and yes, best of all, showed a healthy respect for the First Amendment.

But the press in this case lost on their First Amendment arguments.

The First Amendment questions for the court were:

1) whether the First Amendment protects reporters from divulging information during a criminal prosecution; and

2) if there is a First Amendment privilege, whether the defendant's right trumps that privilege.

The court said "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second question.

Of course, in this case, the questions were applicable only to Miller, Cooper and Russert since the court had first determined the 17(c) issues, and these were the three who were required to produce documents.

The court expressly agreed with the defendant that "it would be absurd to conclude that a news reporter who deserves no special treatment before a grand jury investigating a crime, may nonetheless invoke the First Amendment to stonewall a criminal defendant who has been indicted by that grand jury and seeks evidence to establish his innocence."

The court also held that that the First Amendment does not protect news reporters or organizations from producing documents when the reporters themselves are critical to both the indictment and prosecution of criminal activities.

The reporters had argued in the alternative that, if they lost on their 17(c) arguments, they could still invoke a qualified First Amendment privilege (common law reporters' privilege) and that the defendant could not overcome that privilege. They lost on that point, too.

The court did not opine on whether, in the circumstances of this case, the common law privilege exists, but held that if it did, it had been overcome.

The reporters argued that the defendant could not satisfy a balancing test (that was set out by one of three judges in a prior case) and focused their argument on the documents not being relevant to the defendant's case, but the argument missed the mark because the 17(c) argument had already been determined and the documents they were ordered to produce had already been determined to be relevant and admissible.

Thus, the court said that the reporters' argument on this point was wholly without merit, and that there was no doubt that the defendant could overcome any common law press privilege.

Granted, I've only read it through once, and rather quickly, but the way I read it, it appears to be neither a loss or a victory to either side.

More like a draw on the discovery issues, it seems to me: certain points were conceded by the news agencies in favor of the defence; certain points were decided in favor of the press; certain points were decided in favor of the defendant; certain points were left open to the defence to raise again if and when certain parties testify at trial; and a slight potential tip to the defence in actually having the judge look at the documents at issue, and describing the non-producible ones in sufficient detail to give the defence info on what actually exists, and in other cases ruling that the documents will be held by the court for future possible production if and when certain witnesses testify.

On the First Amendment points, I agree that the court showed tremendous respect for the First, that it considered and followed the precedents properly, and I believe that it made the right decision on the less clear points, which the reporters lost.

[H2O Man]

59. I hope to post

a longer, more detailed description of this ruling. Hopefully today. But you are absolutely right -- it isn't a ruling that grants the journalists an absolute Amendment 1 privilege. Judge Walton makes that very clear. He took the time to view some evidence in camera, and to evaluate each specific issue on merits.

In doing so, I am convinced that he closed the door on any chances that the future Libby appeals would possibly hold up in court. This was one of the three most sensitive areas of the pre-trial hearings. From my view, it was of great interest, because our man Patrick Fitzgerald was not involved. It was up to the other various media attorneys to argue their points. My concern was the possibility that Judge Walton would rule in favor of one side, and overlook the rights of the other side. As much as I want Scooter convicted, I want his rights respected -- in part because that's the way the system works best, in part so he has no good grounds to appeal on.

[Jazz2006]

62. I'll look forward to it.

I agree entirely that everyone (no matter how much we might dislike them on a personal level) who is charged with criminal offences should - must - have their rights respected. Otherwise, the entire system is brought into disrepute, and a mockery is made of the notions of justice, the principles of fundamental justice and fair trials.

I do not agree that this decision on this pre-trial motion "closes the door on any chances that the future Libby appeals would possibly hold up in court", though, because of the absoluteness of that statement. There are all manner of grounds of appeal that may arise in future, which are not limited to pre-trial procedural and evidentiary decisions. However, your subsequent essay/description may be such that my disagreement on this point is rendered moot. I look forward to reading it.

As I said previously, I also think that the decision was proper, fair, well considered, and even-handed.
And that is always a good thing.

Cheers,
Jazz

[spuddonna]

18. And the noose tightens...

Thanks for the updates! I wonder if Dead Eye Dick is starting to sweat, wondering if Libby will rat him out... Well, that's if he can stay awake long enough to get that upset! :evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

34. Malcolm X used to tell us

that he could tell how good of a job he was doing, based on how loud his enemies' were yelling and complaining. Watch for those wimpering pups who whine and complain about this decision. You know the type: the Brian Yorks who willingly humiliate themselves, by taking the public stance that Scooter is an honorable man, that the charges against him are unjust, and that the series of rulings that are going against him are insignificant.

As we watch tv, and read newspapers and magazines and even the internet, we'll find a number of Brian Yorks. To borrow from Johnnie Cochran, a Brian York might put on a knit cap -- but it's just Brian York in a knit cap. I'm sure that Fox News will have the same wimpering breed of pup. They are everywhere.

I thought it was interesting that the washingtonpost.com had two articles on this. One by James Vicini of Reuters at 1:20 pm; the second by Toni Lacy of AP at 1:57 pm. People can view the ruling from different perspectives -- but listen to Malcolm when he says to watch for those who yell and complain.

I'd strongly suggest watching David Shuster's reporting tonight. Both Hardball and Countdown continue to provide the best reporting to be found in the corporate media.

[troubleinwinter]

39. Indeed,

one needn't look far at all to see those who claim the rulings are "routine, insignificant, meaningless paperwork, beyond your comprehension... look away, ignore it".

Bending over so far to convince us of this, its head winds up shoved up its own ass.

[H2O Man]

40. Let's look at some

of the things that have been made public in the pre-trial filings, shall we? Scooter testifies to the grand jury that the president and vice president okayed his sharing classified NIE information with journalists; VP Cheney's copy of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's NYT op-ed; confirmation of Valerie Plame's status with the Agency; I. Liar Libby's grand jury testimony.

I can see how that would upset Brian York and Sean Hannity. And I think it has made progressives very happy, indeed. But most important, it is helping to educate the public about the lies that brought our nation to war in Iraq, and the operation run out of the OVP to destroy those who threatened to uncover the lie.

Remember this: Hardball gets its highest ratings when they run segments on the Plame scandal.

[troubleinwinter]

41. That explains why certain people want to write it off as

"insignificant and unimportant". Because it is so extremeley important, and people ARE INTERESTED, but they don't want us to follow along.... "only lawyers care about this stuff".

[H2O Man]

43. I remember watching the Watergate hearings.

They opened up the American public's minds in a way that had not previously happened in the 1900s. They changed the way people viewed government. It led to an era that, while not perfect, held very real potential in the democratic experiment we call the United States.

Think of the fact that the Founding Fathers set up a federal government with three co-equal branches. Is it possible that they intended for the courts to be hidden from view? That they did not want people to participate in one-third of their government? For goodness sakes -- that sounds like that old, moldie Dick Cheney saying that the nation's energy policy is a "state secret."

I think back to an article I read on TomPaine.common sense back on or about 21 October 2005. It was by James Moore, the Emmy-winning former television news correspondent and co-author of that best-seller "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential." This man has been studying Rove for a long, long time. He knows the deal.

The name of his essay, which was first on HuffingtonPost.com, was "Fitzgerald's Historic Opportunity." Does that sound like something citizens should be interested in? You're darned right it is!

Moore predicted that if Fitzgerald indicted "a few functionaries of the vice president's office or the White House, we are likely to have on our hands a constitutional crisis." Again, would the Founding Fathers expect responsible citizens to be interested? To follow the news? Gosh, I guess so!

Moore continues: "Patrick Fitzgerald has before him the most important criminal case in American history. ...." And: "We may stand witness to a definitive American moment of democracy .... and we choose to believe that destiny has placed Patrick Fitzgerald at this time and this place in our history to save us from the people we elected."

[gkhouston]

44. excellent post

:thumbsup:

I think one of the reasons the case seems to be progressing slowly (to our eyes) is that Fitzgerald is all too aware of what and who he's dealing with. He's going to take as much time as he can get to be sure everything's nailed down tight before moving on to the next step. The next few years should be quite interesting.

[H2O Man]

45. Right.

It really isn't going that slowly. If we think of it as a federal prosecutor going after organized crime -- especially organized crime that has infected and compromised some politicians -- then it is not so slow. The Miller/Cooper appeal took a large chunk of time, and I. Liar Libby has decided he doesn't want to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Those two things have slowed the process. But Mr. Fitzgerald is moving at a good pace.

[gkhouston]

46. looks like he has Libby in a vise now.

Think that plea bargain Libby didn't want last October is starting to look attractive? :7

[troubleinwinter]

47. Now I have a new name for him: "old moldie"!!

It is interesting and important to recollect Watergate. The other day I was inspired to remember when U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell was indicted. Yes, things ARE possible.

If Fitzgerald is destiny, perhaps John Conyers is also. Whether impeachment happens or not, we have a very remarkable patriot right there. A Watergate judiciary veteran.

It is our JOB as citizens to follow and understand as much of the process as we can. That is why I thank you so much for your posts over these many months to help me to understand the complicated legal issues.

[Me.]

"old moldie"

Is a good name. It brings up thoughts of a mind that's had holes eaten into it by moths and the only thing mothballs do is to make him smelly. He needs an altogether good airing out. But we'll leave it to Fitzg. to drag him out of the closet (so to speak).

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

51. That old devil

has tricked many, many people over the years. He will tell any lie to fool the public. But his lies are beginning to catch up to him. People begin to recognize Dick Cheney's lies when they hear them over and over. It's important to note that when Ambassador Wilson first exposed his lies that brought this nation to war in Iraq, Cheney began a coordinated attack on Wilson. He attempted, as Chris Matthews has documented so well, to use the repetition of certain lies -- over and over -- in order to plant the seeds of doubt about Wilson. Why, if you listened to that vile snake Dick Cheney, he would have you thinking your friends are your enemies, and your enemies are your friends.

[Me.]

52. The Problem For Him

Is that the tricks are becoming obvious and no longer as effective they once might have been. Perhaps the wrong person was named Tricky Dick.

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

53. True. True. True.

There are all types of Tricky Dicks. J Edgar Hoover liked to dress like a woman, but as Johnnie Cochran would remind us, it's still J. Edgar Hoover. Nixon, Cheney .... their names change, but they look the same.

[troubleinwinter]

55. This brings something to mind.

I was thinking about it last night... perhaps 2 weeks ago, you mentioned that we should prepare and watch for some disinfo/smear activity. I have seen some peculiar stuff flying around the 'internets', and lots of it here on DU.

Helps to tryyyyy to keep a level head!? :freak: It can be hard werk.

[H2O Man]

56. At the end

of the first week in May, I said that the Libby-Cheney and Rove forces would be starting a serious, coordinated offensive. And I warned about disinformation and smear tactics. I was kind of hoping someone would mention that. Thank you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. Keep in mind, though,

that the men - and they were almost all men - who populated Congress - the House and the Senate - were very different sorts, with very different backgrounds and very different ways of doing business up on the Hill.

They were collegial, not confrontational, and when the day was over, they were friends who socialized quite happily together. They were pros who had histories, and the times were such that they were not preoccupied on a daily basis with fundraising. Their campaigns were modest, old-fashioned things, so they were free to serve their country as their people's representatives.

They were men who loved their country more than they loved the Rat Bastard who is currently squatting illegally in the Oval Office.

They loved the Constitution, unlike the Congress we have now, which takes every opportunity it can to spit on that revered document.

Patrick Fitzgerald will do just fine, and his work will be impeccable. It may not bring the result a lot of people here on DU seem to want - a Rove indictment - but it will be done better than anyone else can do it. That's how good Fitzgerald is.

I was a law student during the Watergate hearings. We have some good folks in Congress, but we'll not see anything like what happened in Washington when giants like Sam Ervin, Mike Mansfield (who appointed Ervin to head the Special Committee), and Pete Rodino walked on the Hill. The people today lack the necessary gravitas.

[Me.]

42. One Can't Help Wondering

What other evidence FitzG. has up his sleeve. And have you noticed the soinds of silence...from No-Facts? Something finally shut that mouth up.

*shadow government*

[H2O Man]

61. A journalist scorned ....

poor Mr. Novak felt like a used tissue.