I was enjoying the coverage the last few days on MSNBC and CNN and all the commentators there were acting deflated and just shocked, shocked they tell us, about the pardon, like someone just took away their fav Fitzmas toy. There were trying to drum up some outrage for the public and at least get some mileage that way, but I think the country as a whole could care less about the pardon, save the leftie elite, so I think they are just going to have to fade out on this, their devious ploy all for naught. So much for Fitzmas. Then I heard some complaining the President should have shortened the sentence. But then I heard some legal commentatoros saying that 'shortening' the sentence was not part of the powers of the pardon, so I'm not sure he could have even done that even if he wanted to. Another thing I noticed is that foreign commenters in the London Times had no idea about the existence of the pardon, and thought pardons were just some corrupt Bush invention. So the pardon outrage might make some hay with foreigners who don't get the whole pardon thing, but I think Americans are well used to the idea and it will be harder to shock most of them on it.

"as Mr. Fitzgerald throwing Mr. Libby the proverbial life-line by which Mr. Libby could have, and should have, extracted himself from the considerable hole he'd dug himself into before Mr. Fitzgerald was ever in the case. " Yes that is a good point and another way to look at it that doesn't demonize Fitz. The investigation was faulty to begin with, but most of that happened BEFORE Fitz ever got on, so I suppose not all his fault. And I always thought Libby's grand jury testimony was completely ridiculous and he suffered from motor mouth during it. Everyone knows, least of all a high paid lawyer, that the less you say the better in any proceding. So Libby did kind of dig his own hole there. However, I still think once Fitz got back a shady answer back from the CIA on whether Plame was even covert, he should have dropped it even before the grand jury.

I know this is a dead thread now, as it is about to turn over to the archive netherworld, but just thought I'd get this down. I've been hearing news coverage all the last week how David Evans lawyers were very persistent in trying to get Nifong's lawyers in handing over more DNA results, even after repeated denials from Nifong that there were any other DNA results. Which makes me a little curious. Just why were Evean's lawyers so persistent in this request? Why were they so sure there was DNA from other non-players on the victim? This kind of ties in nicely with my theory that it could be possible that unnamed guests which we now know attended the party could have been responsbile for the unidentified DNA. For one thing, we can guess the DNA must have been deposited within that day or the day before the party, so the party could have been a likely time that it was deposited. And if there were unnamed non-player guests at the party, by male social norms, they were probably invited by the group leaders and house residents, ie possibly Dave Evans, whose DNA most likely from skin cells was found on the victims fingernails. So did Dave Evans know something about the DNA and where it may have come from, and is that why he got his lawyers to persist so heavily that there must have been some different DNA results? I think people should question this.

That tracks nicely with a recent article on a Parkinson's treatment I read about a couple days ago, also in early testing, that appears to have up to about a 65% improvement record. I'd give you a link but don't have one at the moment, but try the Foxs new site Health section for some info on it. Are we even going to have any diseases in the future? We'll all live to 100.

"Well. The defense should have asked for it then on that basis; Walton would have laughed out loud, and now the defense would have grounds for appeal of the introduction of her classified status and the IIPA investigation (In Walton's world, anyway)." Man. So that's why this is not being appealed now. The defense SHOULD have asked for it before- cause I don't think they had much to lose. If she was covert- okay it wouldn't have changed things because it wouldn't have really affected what the jury was already thinking anyway, and if she WASN'T covert, that would have been a PR triumph at least and a possible appealable issue later. I still don't think it's too late though. Look at what I read in WIki about sentences often being overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct, which often involves search warrant irregularities. Presumably, whether the search warrant was valid or not doesn't always come up in the grand jury or the trial - hence the appeal is where it comes up. So too I believe on whether there were investigatory violations with this case- the appeal might be the place to bring it up.

"when I get back from the pool" You going with Clarice? Yes please dig up what you can on this when you get back. I suppose the time to challenge this was at the grand jury. But the indictment I saw spoke about Libby's lies, too late then. Is there some pre-grand jury motion that a prosecutor files tha could be challenged?

Fine Clarice, but it might make good reading by the pool.

And for all of you still harping on Nifong, read my interpretation of the events in the latest Nifong thread near the bottom at 4:33 PM. It is brilliant. (if I do say so myself!) and completely explains what probably happened. If you don't agree provide any proof in testimony or notes otherwise. Nifong is being falsly accused and you all should be ashamed for not believing him innocent until there is any proof.

"If Fitzgerald were to present evidence that the investigation was into the disclosure of classified information surrounding the disclosure of Plame's affiliation with the CIA, then he would, at very bare minimum, need to produce some evidence that the investigation determined what was and wasn't classified. Just like if you want to prove that you were conducting a murder investigation you would need to produce, at bare minimum, some proof that there was a dead body somewhere along the way." Yes I totally agree Cathy. That issue still gets my goat and I'm still wondering why more hay is not being made over this. If this were allowed to pass, any person could be the subject of some secret crime investigation by some prosecutor and then allowed to be put under oath, without the prosecutor ever having to present any evidence of a crime. It doesn't seem right. At bare minimum, the CIA should at least publicly confirm that Plame was covert and not declare the issue 'complicated'. So how do we know that Fitz is not committing perjury and giving us a false impression of her record he was so fortunate to peruse in private? Certainly the summary that was released does not satisfy that in any way, and as TM surmises, if they had had something better, wouldn't they have used it? Of course all the lib commentators swear ujp and down that Fitz shading the truth would NEVER happen, but how do we know for sure? Remember the outcry against Nifong - just because he's a prosecutor doesn't mean he's impeachable. Don't we have a system of checks and balances here? Where is it in this case?

Thanks Cathy, I agree that the possible payroll scandal is a plausible explanation as to why the CIA is acting so weird about showing her records. I also think they are probably afaid of a lawsuit from Ms. Plame who wouldn't want them to challenge her covertness. Still the date of her last date of foreign service should not be that hard to provide, so I'm not sure that is the whole explantion. And thanks TomM, as that clears it up why Fitz felt he could go around acting so cocky based on that summary alone when that summary proved nothing. So apparently he DID have access to the all the files, but no one else but him gets to see them or challenge his interpretation. Hmmm, didn't Nifong just loose his scalp for a similar thing? Clever of Fitz to get around that pesky rule of sharing. I don't know then why an element of the appeal is not the withholding of relevant information, as I believe even the suggestion of an underlying crime influenced the jury and the sentence, even with the admonitions of the judge to the contrary. And this withheld information is critical for the defense to determine and challenge whether the investigation met the standard of probable cause. I'm not sure if there is a legal avenue to raise this, however.

"he did not include any analysis from DoJ as to her IIPA status in his classified employment summary; and he chose not to present the formal CIA personnel record of the last date for which she received credit for service abroad. " Okay TM I'm glad you brought that up again. I was still a little confused on the issue from your earlier linked posts. So according to what some leftie bloggers replied to this when you wrote about this earlier, Fitz had access to all of Plames employment records (so they thought Fitz had to know enough to resolve this issue) even if we didn't get to know about them. So if Fitz had access to them, why wouldn't the rules of disclosure apply and the defense have access to them as well? Now I briefly reread your old linked post, and the defense said something about that they did also have access to the same piece of information, and they saw that the term covertness just referred to the interal CIA meaning, so it didn't fly for them. So do we know whether Fitz had had access to MORE specific info than the defense had on this somewhere, and if so, why didn't the defense get it as well?

"Could be so sane it's crazy... Oh yeah, sure." And this coming from a man who spends most of his day coming up with so many multiple personalties it puts 'Sybil' to shame, just so he can bug people he'll never meet? Ahhh, how you amuse me my friend...

"so much so that virtually everyone (including the panel) was mocking him by the end of the hearing." That's okay. People can be wrong- even lots of people. Even lots of "experts". That's why you have to investigate it for yourself.

"Meehan repeatedly admitted that he and Nifong had agreed not to report that he found DNA from unidentified men in the rape kit. Meehan admitted violating his laboratory standards by not reporting the results of all tests." How does that square with this?: "Mr. Meehan, a witness for the state agency prosecuting the case, said Mr. Nifong had asked for a report on identifiable male DNA and did not limit what else he could write in the report. “Mr. Nifong never directed what should be in or out of the report,” Mr. Meehan said." In my opinion, Nifong, in concern for privacy like he said, just asked the lab for a report of any matches. In the natural course of trying to find matches however, the lab of course will notice by default that if the DNA doesn't match, then they don't match (duh) and that will show up on a report whether you want it to or not. I suppose the point is, Nifong did not ask for a report of all existing DNA on the accuser - just the matches. I think the defense lawyers led Meehan into a trap there - by perhaps asking him - did Nifong ask you only to report the matches (yes), and somehow the defense twisted that into "Nifong agreed with Meehan NOT to report the non-matches". Meehan did not provide Nifong with the non-matches, because Nifong never ASKED for them, and Meehan only included them as part of all the results in the long lab report, which the young defense lawyer only figured out himself after he combed through it with a technical book. If the defense lawyers had to expend so much energy to find it, how was Nifong supposed to know about? So in the end, I conclude the Nifong is Darth Vader act is way overblown, and the reality is more complicated.

So to continue my quest to play defense lawyer for Nifong, here are some excerpts from the above articles: "Nifong had never disclosed these results, even though the new discovery law required him to hand over a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert... Before the hearing, Nifong, defense lawyers and Judge Smith met privately in a small conference room next to the grand jury room. Nifong said he didn't know about the withheld results. "I just, in terms of the discovery issues, frankly, you know, I got the [motion] and I was like, 'whoa.' So I immediately faxed a copy to Dr. Meehan and said, 'Read this, and I'll call you in the morning and get your opinions about this.' And we discussed it, and I said, 'This is a major issue for the defense. They're entitled to hear about it, and I think it needs to be addressed right away.' " In contrast to this: "Mr. Meehan, a witness for the state agency prosecuting the case, said Mr. Nifong had asked for a report on identifiable male DNA and did not limit what else he could write in the report. “Mr. Nifong never directed what should be in or out of the report,” Mr. Meehan said." Okay it looks bad if Nifong lied to a direct request by a judge to turn over any and ALL tests. But so far in my reading, I haven't seen the evidence that Nifong was definitely aware of the matching tests. Meehan may have implied that at some point, but then he basically took it back with this last statement. There were no notes that Nifong knew. So where is the proof that Nifong knew? I have to read more on this to find any direct proof of this.

What about my pet issue of the defense not being given the necessary info to ever determine or challenge whether Plame was actually covert? And how the non-challenged covertness was used as an element of the sentence. Can this objection somehow be folded under the CIPA issue - as in no one has properly supervised Fitz on Plame's covertness or properly ruled on it, (since no superior authority in the government such as the CIA has formally ruled on it)?

Thanks for clarifying that, Clarice! Here's another good concise article on the accuser's stories: http://www.raleighchronicle.com/2007043003.html It illustrates the inconsistencies on the stories of the assault well, however I would like to see an actual transcript before I make up my mind, and again, while there are for sure inconsistencies, the gist of the story is on the whole, in my opinion, basically consistent, (raped anally, vaginally and then orally) and perhaps the varying details can be ascribed to being in an altered state which we all agreed she was probably in. Didn't find anything on whether the fingernail DNA was skin cells. I would assume so because if it wasn't the defense would have darn sure made us known about it.

Okay I just did a search and saw this article that concisely summarizes what Nifong did, in not such a good light, so that makes it a little clearer. http://www.newsobserver.com/1537/story/564994-p2.html

"So if Evans blew his nose and threw the kleenex in the wastebasket (and he lived in the house, so that's not an implausible scenario), that would explain how his DNA ended up on the fake fingernail. " Couldn't they have determined whether the DNA in the nails was predominately mucus or skin cells? I would think they could have.

"Because every other place in the US does require gj transcripts except North Carolina, Sylvia" Okay, mystery solved.

Well I read that Jerralyn link. It wasn't a transcript of the whole disbarment trial, just some concluding thoughts. I saw this in there: "And that led to something really very extraordinary, a declaration of actual innocence of the three defendants — something that could never have been accomplished even if the criminal case had proceeded before Judge Smith. And while we don’t know, it seems reasonably clear that one would predict that at the suppression hearing in February the case would have been dismissed. But it would have been dismissed with no declaration of innocence" So now I see bar is taking it upon themselves to judge the accusers in the criminal system as perjurers without a pesky trial or a jury to get in the way. Great new precedent. Then I read some NYT stuff on the subject. "Brian W. Meehan, director of the laboratory, DNA Security, said it was his decision alone not to refer to the unidentified male DNA in a report. Mr. Meehan, a witness for the state agency prosecuting the case, said Mr. Nifong had asked for a report on identifiable male DNA and did not limit what else he could write in the report. “Mr. Nifong never directed what should be in or out of the report,” Mr. Meehan said, other than its main purpose of showing DNA matches to known males, such as a match with 98 percent certainty between one suspect (Dave Evans)and false fingernails found in the suspect’s trashcan." Okay, so Nifong never directed Meehan to lie. Soooo Nifong lied about what? Well apparently he lied about his "awareness" of the rules of evidence, and his claim that privacy would play a role in such decisions. So the panel found him to be a liar about his concerns about privacy, even though they agreed with him on this: "16) False statements to State Bar that privacy concerns played a role in Meehan report? No. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? No." Soooo, the bar agreed Nifong made no false statements about his concern for privacy, but he was lying anyway when he said he was so concerned about privacy he didn't ask for the other results. Okay, I get it, riiiiight. Remind me never to put those people on my jury.

If as Clarice says (in caps) that there is NO transcript from a Grand Jury then why is there this kind of stiff in the Libby indictment?: "On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, ... (underlined portions alleged as false): . . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that." Who has the perfect memory then if there is no transcript? I must look this up later...

Yes typepad is messing up. When you try and post it clicks a million times which gives me anxiety that I've have a million multiple posts appearing and look like a real dork! (well more than usual)

"She goes for periods of time where she makes lots of sense, and then she goes into this frentic posting mode where she repeats things that are absurd. (Like that of course Nifong wanted to hear Seligman's alibi.) " Hmmm. Did I ever say that Cathy? I said the DETECTIVES would have wanted to hear what Seligmann said, if Nifong didn't. Wow reading comprehension can be lacking here. If you keep up with twisted words I might start putting you on the troll list. As to my frenetic posting, I doubt it's bipolar. It's just that I have things in real life to concentrate on, and when I actually have a moment to sit down to post something, as I'm thinking about what I'm posting, it makes me think some other thoughts on the topic, which makes me think some other thoughts on it etc - hence multiple posts. Nah, no mental illness here. Although I have always been told from all quarters that I'm "not like other people" - so I don't know if that's sane or crazy. Could be so sane it's crazy...

Another thought - the bar and the public is making such a big deal about the hidden DNA results. But think about this, I just reminded myself by a search that the indictments happened weeks BEFORE any DNA tests that Nifong was crucified for happened and were not a factor at all in two of the students being indicted. (Dave Evans was indicted after the 2nd round of DNA tests because his DNA actually DID partially match on the discarded fingernails, so I doubt he can claim foul play for that.) So in my opinion, Nifong can only be held liable for a supposed false indictment, not malicious prosecution for a trial since the trial never took place. And he is being pilloried for not providing the DNA non-matches. However, the DNA was not a factor at all in the indictment. The flawed line-up was, and that was not run by Nifong, that was run by the police. So what exactly did Nifong do wrong here that actually effected the students? Nothing in my opinion. If anyone should be held liable, it should be the bumbling police who ran the flawed line-up. Maybe Nifong should sue THEM!