Comments on: Dick Cheney’s Lawyer Spikes the Phone-Jamming Case

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:33:27 +0000

How can you say the legal profession moves at a glacial pace? If I was arrested I’d be before a judge within a day or two and indicted before week’s end and probably in court within a month.

Maybe what you mean is that legal action where politics is involved is always scheduled to benefit the party in power.

When it comes to the Bush mafia I always assume it was planned to be illegal and to suit their ends. To assume otherwise is not only stupid and not warranted by experience, but a danger to everyone.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:03:31 +0000

These witnesses aren’t going to be government witnesses. So they say they only have to turn over summaries of what they said, not the transcripts.

By: looseheadprop

looseheadprop — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:30:01 +0000

But you have to give over Brady material. It’s not optional. I’m confused.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:38:28 +0000

Like I said, just one of the wacky things. I better get back to my Fieger transcripts, bc obviously you and LHP will have a coniption about it.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:24:05 +0000

What? You have got to be kidding. This comment box doesn’t have enough room for a list of all the reasons that is BS. That is a patently sanctionable spurious argument made in bad faith.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:13:33 +0000

I can’t tell you what their face looked like at the time, sorry.

But here’s the wacky thing (okay, one of the wacky things). The govt is refusing to give Fieger’s team the GJ transcripts of the witnesses who exonerated him. They’ve just handed over very short (short paragraph in length) summary of their testimony and told them to go get the witnesses’ testimony themselves. Now, that obviously sets up a bit of a perjury trap. But I also suspect they’re trying to prevent Fieger’s team from getting transcripts of these questions. Right now, they’ve just got the witnesses themselves who reported back that they were asked about whom they voted for, including WRT Granholm. But it’d sure make a more compelling presentation if you had the transcripts, huh?

By: looseheadprop

looseheadprop — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:03:26 +0000

IIRC there was some issue about federal enforcement of state election law, but I thought it was a red herring. The calls were made from (was it Oklahoma?) so I argued at the time that it was wire fraud, but others (also former feds) thought the “fraud” part was thin.

Also, since when is telephone a campaign HQ a violation of election law. The reason these mutts thought it was “legal” was they thought this particular technique danced in between the raindrops of various criminal statutes.

At the time, lawyers with election law and/or public corruption experience were sending this guy suggestions about what should go in his indictment. We still do panel discussion on it

By: looseheadprop

looseheadprop — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:59:22 +0000

2 years for a low profile, low stakes public corruption case is not unusual. For a high profile, high stakes case–it’s a rocket docket.

I’m telling you, my profession moves at a glacial pace, which is why I can’t understand why I’m always so rushed????

By: looseheadprop

looseheadprop — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:56:39 +0000

I saw this panel on CSPan.( i had to wrap x-mas presents for office gift exchange and left house very ate this AM)

I hope they replay it. It was a doozy. Try to watch it if they post on the website

By: looseheadprop

looseheadprop — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:53:53 +0000

Are you pulling my leg? they did that with a straight face?