Oct 31, 2005 at 11:27 PM by Political Chase
I have finally gone through the indictment in detail. All the perjury and false statements are clear and concise. How Fitzgerald will go about proving them, I don’t know. I know that Libby kept copious notes, so I’m sure he has some of those to present. Then there’s Miller’s hand written notes - no doubts there. I’m sure part of the case will be based on what agents and others testify to, without benefit of evidence, but the other parts are too damning to make to take away the credibility of investigators’ testimonies.
Unless something has changed today that I am not aware of, Libby is planning the “selective memory” defense. It just will not work, based on his testimony alone. It is a double-edged sword - either way he’ll get sliced.
Repeatedly, Libby testifies that he made specific statements to reporters and others, and emphasized his content and selection of words.
Libby testifying about his conversation with Tim Russert:
And then he said, yeah - yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don’t know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn’t ask him anymore about it because I didn’t want to be digging in on him…
Testimony regarding Matt Cooper:
I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact.
Yes, that’s correct sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don’t know if it’s true. I was careful about that because amongst other things, I wanted to be clear I didn’t know Mr. Wilson.
Testimony about reporters (general):
Yes sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was - that’s what - that’s how I did it.
So I wanted to be clear they didn’t, they didn’t think it was me saying it. I didn’t know it was true I and wanted them to understand that.
Does it sound like Scooter has poor recall? It sounds like he planned on reporters not giving up their sources and it failed him.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:42 PM by Political Chase
There was a lot of speculation over the weekend on how the Bush administration would move forward. Specifically, would the president get rid of the old and bring in the new or stay the course, as we’ve heard for years. If the Veep’s appointments are indications of the future, it is more of the same. I’m not surprised.
This could also be an indication of how the criminal side of things will go…fight to the end. If so, Bush will attempt a strategy to recover that is in stark contrast to his predecessors, who were successful - Clinton, Reagan, et. al.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:33 PM by Political Chase
TalkLeft’s comments on David Addington in a post yesterday.
Murray Waas and Paul Singer, writing at the National Journal, have more on Cheney Counsel David Addington and his involvement in the Valerie Plame probe. They state that Addington did nothing criminally wrong. But, there are other issues.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller does not sound pleased with Addington, who has been mentioned in recent weeks as a likely replacement for Libby as Cheney’s Chief of Staff.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:14 PM by Political Chase
Info on David Addington from the Washington Post, October 18, 2005:
In the Bush White House, Cheney typically has operated secretly, relying on advice from a tight circle of longtime advisers, including Libby; David Addington, his counsel; and his wife, Lynne, and two children, including Liz, a top State Department official. But a former Cheney aide, who requested anonymity, said it is "implausible" that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame’s name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy.
Oct 31, 2005 at 9:07 PM by Political Chase
VP Dick Cheney has filled Scooter Libby’s position by promoting two people. David S Addingtion will become Chief of Staff and John P. Hannah will serve as deputy national security adviser.
Hannah was questioned in the investigation leading to Scooter Libby’s indictment. Following is an excerpt from a New York Times’ article (sub. req.) published on October 23, 2005.
The wrangling over the United Nations speech exposed long-simmering suspicions by some administration officials about the reliability of the C.I.A.’s intelligence on Iraq. A former intelligence official who previously worked with Mr. Libby said that his antipathy to the C.I.A. dated back at least 15 years, to the first Bush administration, when he was working under Mr. Wolfowitz at the Defense Department.
Mr. Libby was also part of the network of Iraq hawks within the administration. He is a protégé of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was perhaps the leading neoconservative in the administration until he left to head the World Bank. Mr. Libby’s deputy, John Hannah, had close ties to John R. Bolton, then the under secretary of state for arms control; David Wurmser, a Bolton aide who later joined Mr. Cheney’s office; and Robert Joseph, then the senior director for nonproliferation on the National Security Council.
Mr. Bolton is now ambassador to the United Nations, and Mr. Joseph has taken over as under secretary of state, where he has retained as his executive assistant Frederick Fleitz, a C.I.A. officer who had served as Mr. Bolton’s chief of staff. Some of those officials, including Mr. Hannah and Mr. Joseph, have been questioned in the leak case. [Emphasis added.]
Oct 31, 2005 at 8:07 PM by Political Chase
Some comments on nominee Samuel Alation from a law student (at the time) where Alito was a guest lecturer.
—–
Oct 31, 2005 at 7:48 PM by Political Chase
Some case history on Samuel Alito:
Alito wrote the majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display. Alito wrote:
"As our prior discussion of Lynch and Allegheny County illustrates, the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding holiday displays have been marked by fine line-drawing, and therefore it is not easy to determine whether particular displays satisfy the Court’s standards. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that city officials miscalculate and approve a display that is found by the federal courts to cross over the line is hardly proof of the officials’ bad faith."
A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her." Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 [corrected] decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito’s dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito’s reasoning.
A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.
A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), allowing an Iranian woman to seek asylum in the U.S. on gender persecution grounds.
A majority opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), holding that the public school district’s anti-harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), reinstating an administrative law judge’s ruling in favor of parents who claimed the school system’s failure to protect their child from bullying justified their placing him in a different high school.
A dissenting opinion in Sheridan v. Dupont, 74 F.3d 1439 (3d Cir. 1996)(en banc). Alito would have required a plaintiff to meet a higher standard of evidence to survive a motion for summary judgement in a sex discrimination case, agreeing with a ruling by the 5th Circuit. Alito earlier wrote the majority opinion when the case was heard before a three-judge panel, expressing a preference for the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, but ruling according to 3rd Circuit precedent.
A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000), in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstititional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).
A dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a U.S. law banning private citizens from owning assault weapons violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in light of the then recently decided United States v. Lopez.
A dissenting opinion in Homar v. Gilbert, 89 F.3d 1009 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a state university need not hold a hearing before suspending a campus policeman without pay after he had been arrested on drug charges. The Supreme Court later agreed with Alito.
A dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986, 989 (3d Cir. 1997), arguing against a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority responded that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.”
Oct 31, 2005 at 3:52 PM by Political Chase
A brief bio on Samuel Alito —
Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.
Education:
Princeton University, A.B., 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985
Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1990 - present
Oct 31, 2005 at 1:21 PM by Political Chase
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court this morning. Often called Scalito, in reference to Justice Scalia, is a conservative judge that will challenge Justice Scalia in a race to the right.
—–
