Category Archives: i lewis scooter libby lawrence s. robbins appeal perjur

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),
beacuse 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. . .]