just to hammer home that point about andrea mitchell — and unreliable testimony

i thought it might be useful to
make plain just what mr. libby swore
was true, at a march 24, 2004 before
a federal grand jury, as to what he knew about,
and from, andrea mitchell.

now, note particularly that, unlike in
the below grand jury proceeding, there
would have been no way for patrick fitzgerald
to cross-examine the veracity of anything his
defense lawyers offered as evidence at trial
related to ms. mitchell — simply because he could
not be asked questions — once he invoked
his fifth amendment right not to testify
at his own criminal trial.

so — let’s now look at these transcript
excerpts with a view to whether ms. michell’s
videos, posted earlier, would have, in any
manner been relevant, or trustworthy, without
the ability to ask scooter libby about them:

Transcript of Libby Grand
Jury Testimony March 24, 2004

. . .By Mr. Fitzgerald:

Q. And it remains your testimony that with regard to Andrea Mitchell, you don’t recall whether or not you discussed Wilson’s wife working at the CIA with her, but you have a recollection of being in a dilemma that if she were to ask you how you knew, that you were afraid that you would have to tell her that Russert had told you. You didn’t want her to learn from you what Russert may not have told her?

Mr. Libby:

A. That’s, that’s the bit about that conversation that sticks out in my mind, sir.

Q. And now, did you at all feel uncomfortable in the fall of 2003, having had these conversations when you did get cleared by Mr. McClellan and the word came out that there’s no White House involvement in these leaks whatsoever, did you feel uncomfortable that in any way you had misled Mr. McClellan, or the President, or anyone else in the administration to believe that there was no White House involvement in this, in this factual scenario when in fact you had been talking to reporters?

A. Certainly not at all uncomfortable with what I wanted Mr. McClellan to say which was I was not the source for Mr. Novak. I’m not uncomfortable about what Mr. McClellan said because I had gone to the Vice President and told him, “I would be happy to tell you everything I know if you want me to.” And so I think I did what I was supposed to do. And it’s my understanding that I wasn’t supposed to be going around talking to lots of people about what I recall and exchanging memories on it. So I’m comfortable with that.

Q. And just so we’re clear, I’ve been asking you questions about prior — on your conversations with people prior to the FBI beginning interviews. I’m not at all asking questions about what people should be doing henceforth. So no one is asking you to go out and have conversations with people from this point forward.

A. Okay.

Q. And given that you understood that the better practice was not to have conversations with people, why did you pick up the phone to call Tim Russert rather than have your lawyer call him?

A. Tim Russert doesn’t know my lawyer, and I picked up the phone and only said, I’d like you to — I’m wondering if you would be willing to talk to my lawyer, and so I didn’t think there was anything wrong with that because I didn’t go into details about anything. And he said, “I better talk to my lawyer.” And so we then had — I think his lawyer called mine, or mine called his, and that was that.

Q. Did you ever hear back from Tim Russert whether he would — did he ever tell you he had talked to your lawyer?

A. Never heard back from him.

Q. Sir, sir?

A. I never heard back from Tim Russert.

Q. Have you reached out to any other reporters, asked them whether they would be willing to speak to you, or your counsel?

A. I have not reached out, but I had a conversation with Evan Thomas at one point about a different subject, and he said, “What’s the story about this Wilson stuff?” And I said, “I’m not allowed to talk about that. But you know, if you want, I can — you can talk to my lawyer, but I can’t — I’m not allowed to talk to you about this stuff.” And he said, “Okay.”. . .

. . .Q. And just so we’re clear, so as you sit here today, it remains your testimony that you recall no conversation with Marc Grossman in which Marc Grossman told you that Wilson worked — wife worked at the CIA. Correct?

A. I don’t recall that.

Q. And as you sit here today, it’s your testimony that all during the week of July 6th to July 14th you never recalled your conversation back on or about June 12th with Vice President Cheney who had told you that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in counterproliferation. Correct?

A. Right. To be exact, I believe my testimony is I don’t recall recalling that, and I recall being surprised by what Tim Russert said. And from that I believe that I did not recall it at all during that week. I know I didn’t — I recall being surprised when I learned it from Tim Russert, and therefore I don’t think I remembered it in the day or two beforehand. . .

“i don’t recall recalling that. . .” — that bears all
of the indicia of being a false statement — a false denial.

and the engine of cross-examination, in the skilled hands of
patrick fitzgerald, makes that plain. contrast the above,
with that essentially-unanswered sound-bite opening
my other post — and then it is easy to understand
why unchallenged triple hearsay is always inadmissable
(save for impeachment purposes — and why should any
judge have allowed trafficing in collateral rumors, in
front of the jury, or the impeachment of the same,
or different rumors, unless mr. libby was willing
to testify he was aware of them?). . .

do tell, mr. robbins.

the tactical advantages of being a federal district court judge (walton)

now that the libby filing
is public, judge walton — ever the
able jurist — may now carefully
craft the reasoning of his sentencing
order to specifically adress each
of the three proffered arguments
of “close questions” for the release of
mr. libby, while his appeals are pending.

excellent. well-done, judge walton.

this is exactly why they wear the robes,
and the rest of us may only sit in the
gallery, and watch with admiration. . .

as i said, excellent.

he waited until mr. robbins had shown
his hand (a pair of fours — as in,
“two-by-fours” — ham-handed), and
now he’ll show his own (full-house, aces over kings!). . .

aces — way over would-be kings (cheney and bush). . .

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]

images and VIDEO from scooter libby’s june 19, 2007 application for release pending appeal

note — the original source
of the filing — at mr. robbins’ law-
firm website — links to video, at exhibit “f”,
about 120 pages into the pdf — what a
hoot! — andrea mitchell, dissembling!

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

if the above link doesn’t work
for you, CLICK TO WATCH!

alright, on the substance of the inadmissability
as evidence of the above statement:

(1) it is triple — or, perhaps, quadruple hearsay.

hearsay, distilled, is really a rule against
admitting into evidence at trial, gossip.

that is to say, hearsay is unreliable as
evidence in a trial (where liberty is at stake),
because it simply repeats gossip – third hand,
which the speaker herself admits to having no
involvement in. . . an entertainingly dis-
ingenuous sound-bite for the nation’s
conservative spin-doctors, but entirely
inadmissable in court. and clearly so.

(2) it is irrelevant. at a very bare
minimum — in order for it to have any
relevance to the trial of scooter libby,
it must be shown that the speaker had
communicated this gossip to mr. libby — or
that mr. libby was aware of it. mr. libby,
despite earlier indications from his legal
team (perhaps precisely to get these sorts
of gossip-laden quips admitted into evidence),
decided toward the end, not to testify.

that is his right — but it necessarily makes
many potentially-relevant pieces of evidence
irrelevant, if the state of mr. libby’s knowledge
about those matters cannot be tested — on cross-
examination, for example. and his choice not to
testify renders him “unavailable” for cross-exam
about what he might have known, or been aware of,
as to ms. mitchell’s remarks, or any one else’s.

(3) finally — as proof of the unreliability,
and irrelevance, of this sort of gossip — note
that here — right here! — mr. lawrence s. robbins links us
(in exhibit g) to ms. mitchell’s flat-
out DENIAL of these very same rumors,
all as broadcast on a don imus audio/video tape. . .

ahh — what the heck! let’s roll the tape! — (thanks mr. robbins!):

You need to have Windows Media Player in order to view this performance. Download it from http://www.windowsmedia.com/

that’s kinda’ astonishingly-thin gruel, upon
which to urge the immediate release of a duly-
tried and convicted felon — a perjurer, and
obstructor of justice — no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END, UPDATED PORTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

later, i will have much more here, but i’ll
start by noting that mr. robbins apparently
concedes what i had earlier suggested — that
mr. libby’s application for expedition is
not one covered by the mandatory provisions
of the relevant sections of the united states
code relating to criminal appeals.

that is to say, it would be an extraordinary
event if the court of appeals granted mr. robbins’
motion for release an expedited review, here.

the handbook for the d.c. court of appeals
explicitly so indicates. so — should he be
granted expedited review, it would seem fair
to ask what role his fame like-mindedness
conservative credentials notoriety played
in any would-be extraordinarily-preferential-treatment.

for the sake of quick summary, i’ve edited
a succint statement of the grounds upon which
mr. robbins urges that scooter libby be granted
release while his appeals are pending. none seem
particularly impressive, but the first has the
best shot of getting more than a passing-glance
from the d.c. circuit court of appeals — click
to enlarge — and note the stilted-framing of the
questions presented (i can’t wait to see team
fitz re-cast them in a more genuinely neutral voice):

well — that is one great job of
twisting, and torturing, the english
language, to send the learned reader
off toward one’s desired end, mr. robbins. . .

that is to say, i find these sorts
of stating-the-conclusion-in-the-form-
of-the-question-presented off-putting,
and insulting to the intelligence of
the clerks, and the court, itself.

[more to follow later in the day. . .]