|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber.
It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy.
As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
I didn't claim that there was an equal amount of corruption in both parties right now or even that one party has been more corrupt or abusive within a certain time frame. What I'm saying is that a look at the histories of both parties will show prominent politicians at the state and federal levels endorsing abuses of the rights of American citizens (which is why I don't trust either party or government in general). Do you disagree?
|
Telluride, you've framed your response, and then your question in a measured and reasonable way....and of course, I do not disagree with you. If you are saying that the "history" of the malfeasance of both parties is grounds, at this time, to embrace alternative parties, I don't see that as practical or in the best interests of the majority. The democrats, before this year, did not control the house since Jan., 1995, and the senate, since Jan. 2003. IMO, our country is in a crisis of confidence in it's national leadership...and the only near term hope to mitigate it is to restore checks and balances, via renewal of oversight and accountability of the executive branch by the congress. The congress is now led by a democratic party majority. The house speaker and key senate and house committees are recently led by, so far.... inquisitive, deliberative, methodical, and....when appropriate....aggressive, no nonsense, congressmen and senators. They seem headed in a direction that will reveal whether the DOJ can ever again, under this president, function as the investigative and enforcement agency of the people of the United States, or only of the dictates of the executive branch....and sooner than I would have predicted. It's the wrong time to look elsewhere for a political remedy, IMO.
We deserve better than we've gotten. Use the democrats in the short term, to unseat as many republicans as possible, in November, 2008. Then, if they disappoint, back whoever you prefer in the 2010 mid-term elections. I see no other way to change course as quickly as is needed.....
<b>powerclown:</b>
This is from "one of your own"...he "gets it":
Quote:
http://captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010173.php
June 7, 2007
Was The Libby Sentence 'Extreme'?....
.....They found Libby guilty on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice -- crimes that go to the heart of our justice system. Whether or not the investigation in question resulted in an indictment on the original charges, we cannot allow people to lie and obstruct justice, even when they believe they act with the best intentions. Keeping the conviction and the fine while commuting the prison sentence would be a good middle ground to acknowledging the adventuresome nature of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, and it also allows Libby to continue to pursue his appeals on the conviction.
However, I'm struck by the notion that the sentence is extreme or excessive. Federal sentencing guidelines for perjury and obstruction are pretty clear, as my friend Jeralyn Merritt points out. Obstruction of justice is a level 14 crime for sentencing purposes, and even with no criminal record, a single count at that level brings a 15-21 month sentence, as the DoJ chart shows. It also carries a 3-level upgrade if "the offense resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice." That puts Libby's level at 17, with a 24-30 month sentence. If the defendant/convict abused a position of "special trust" -- and as a high-ranking government official, Libby qualifies -- the level on sentencing has to be increased two levels to 19. That puts the potential sentence at 30-37 months -- and that's not accounting for multiple convictions for perjury.
Federal judges do not have a lot of leeway on sentencing. That's because conservatives insisted on these sentencing guidelines more than twenty years ago, frustrated with a judiciary that gave too many slaps on the wrist. They work well, too, but they tie the hands of federal judges. Judge Reggie Walton expressed sorrow and frustration at the sentencing, but his hands were mostly tied. As I wrote earlier this week, the convictions made the sentencing an anticlimax, and Walton appears to have actually taken it easy on Libby. Walton's only other option would have been to vacate the convictions, but he had no real legal basis on which to do that.
I believe Bush will wait for the appeals process to run its course before inteceding on Libby's behalf in any way. If he does intercede, he would be better advised to take Otis' advice.
|
Doesn't Ed Morrissey of captainsquartersblog.com make an identical argument to that of "team Fitzgerald", displayed below?
Doesn't Bush....if this article can be relied on....seem like an unconscionable elitest and hypocrite? He unleashed Judge Walton on the U.S. public....but not on his own Scooter Libby?
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6468944.story
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Libby's judge known as 'tough guy'; that's why Bush appointed him
Libby's judge was one of the president's first judicial appointments.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
June 7, 2007
WASHINGTON — Years ago, when he was a local trial judge, Reggie B. Walton developed a reputation for his sentencing of ordinary street thugs.
"If you got convicted, he was going to smack you," said Randall Eliason, a former prosecutor who recalled that Walton would often sentence defendants more harshly than other judges would.
That Walton would put the Bush administration in an uncomfortable position of having to consider a politically charged pardon for Libby is highly ironic: The 58-year-old jurist was one of the first appointments that Bush made to the federal bench in October 2001, a prime example of a new law-and-order mentality that the administration wanted to infuse in the courts.
"Bush wanted people to know that 'I appoint tough guys to the bench,' " said Roscoe Howard, the U.S. attorney in Washington during Bush's first term. "They appointed him just for what he did to Scooter; they were just not expecting it to happen to Scooter."
By all accounts, Walton is a tough guy. A judge for more than 25 years, he did two separate stints on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, appointed by both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He served as an associate director of the White House drug control office and as chairman of a national commission to curb prison rape.
The Washington Post reported an incident two years ago in which Walton, driving his family in downtown Washington to the airport for a vacation, noticed a cabdriver being attacked. The 5-foot-9 judge, who played football at West Virginia State University, stopped his vehicle, wrestled the attacker to the ground and held him in check until police arrived.
"He started toward me," Walton told the Washington Post. "I had to take him down."
Despite Walton's history as a "long ball hitter" when it comes to sending criminals to jail, lawyers and legal experts said the punishment he imposed on Libby was within his discretion under the law.
The 2 1/2 year sentence was within the range of guidelines that the Bush administration has created and espoused for federal judges to follow to ensure that defendants are punished the same regardless of the judge hearing their case. The administration and Republican members of Congress have admonished other judges who give defendants a break under the guidelines . . .
|
<b>I post the influences on my opinion, powerclown....right outta the "record"....and yours come from....where?</b>
Quote:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...memo052507.pdf
Page 1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,
Special Counsel, respectfully submits the following sentencing memorandum:
........This memorandum addresses the seriousness of defendant’s
offense conduct and <b>responds to certain possible mitigating arguments identified in the
Presentence Investigation Report</b>.....
<b>II. Seriousness of Defendant’s Offense Conduct</b>.........
....Page 2
.....As President Bush stated on October 6,
2003: “[t]his is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. . . . We’re
talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will set a clear signal we expect other leaks
to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.” Remarks by President Bush at
Press Availability with President Kibaki of Kenya, Oct. 6, 2003, at
http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...0031006-3.html. The President and his
spokesman made it clear on repeated occasions that the President expected everyone in his
administration to cooperate and provide information to the investigators.......
.....Page 7
<b>III. Response to Certain Arguments in Mitigation</b>
In this case, as is his right, Mr. Libby maintains that despite his conviction, he is
totally innocent. He has expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no
recognition that there is anything he should have done differently – either with respect to his
false statements and testimony, or his role in providing reporters with classified information
about Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA.
Instead, on Mr. Libby’s behalf his supporters have submitted to the probation office
and the Court a variety of arguments challenging the propriety of his prosecution. These
arguments for leniency paint Mr. Libby as the victim of an improper, unnecessary, and
politically motivated investigation, an unfair indictment, and a wrongful conviction. These
arguments mirror comments made by the defense’s public relations team and posted on the
defense website, www.scooterlibby.com, before, during and after the trial. The submission
of these arguments on Mr. Libby’s behalf is well known to Mr. Libby and his attorneys, and
while they have not to date explicitly embraced these arguments, neither have they disavowed
them. The government submits that these arguments are completely at odds with the kind of
contrition that normally is a pre-condition to leniency. We address the lack of merit of these
arguments in the event the defense presses such arguments as supporting a lenient sentence.
<b>A. Mr. Libby’s Public Service</b>
In the Offender Characteristics Section of the Presentence Investigation Report, a
number of Mr. Libby’s supporters cite Mr. Libby’s public service on behalf of our national
Page 8
security during the war against terrorism, and note the fact that Mr. Libby worked long hours
for the government under great stress, when he could have earned a more lucrative salary in
the private practice of law. We take no issue with Mr. Libby’s service to the government and
recognize that it did indeed involve long hours, great stress and foregone income. While
some may fervently support particular policy positions Mr. Libby advocated, and others
strenuously object to those same positions, what is relevant for sentencing is not any effort
at assessing the correctness of those policies, but recognition of a positive aspect of Mr.
Libby’s character: namely that Mr. Libby worked long and hard to advance policies that he
believed were in the best interests of the United States. We have never challenged that
aspect of Mr. Libby’s background and do not do so now.
However, some of those who spoke to the Probation Office on Mr. Libby’s behalf
advocate that his service in the public sector should excuse him from imposition of any
punishment for his crimes. [Sentence redacted and filed under seal.]
It is worth placing such suggestions in
context by noting that there are many others who have served the nation at great personal
hardship, the overwhelming majority of whom are of considerably less means than Mr.
Libby. Yet we would not be prepared to excuse those who served in the FBI, the CIA, the
military or the Peace Corps if they were found to have perjured themselves and committed
Page 9
obstruction of justice during a criminal investigation of a national security matter. We should
not apply a different set of rules to Mr. Libby because he served in the White House.
<b>B. Propriety of Mr. Libby’s Prosecution</b>
Others of Mr. Libby’s friends and associates <b>interviewed for the Presentence
Investigation Report assert that his prosecution was unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by
politics.</b> [Remainder of paragraph redacted and filed under seal.]
Page 10
<h3>The argument that Mr. Libby is an innocent wrongly charged</h3> because it was known
early in the investigation that others had leaked the identity of Valerie Wilson overlooks
critical facts as well as the jury’s carefully reasoned verdict. First, the evidence at trial
proved that Mr. Libby was guilty, not innocent. Mr. Libby learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment in June 2003 directly from the Vice President, as well as from senior
government officials from both the State Department (Marc Grossman) and the CIA (Bob
Grenier) and Cathie Martin, who handled public affairs for the Vice President. <b>The evidence
showed that Mr. Libby was aggravated about Ambassador Wilson</b> and paid exceptionally
close attention in June and July 2003 to media stories about Mr. Wilson. Mr. Libby disclosed
information about Ms. Wilson’s employment <h3>to Judith Miller on June 23.</h3>
Following Ambassador Wilson’s Op Ed <h3>in the New York Times on July 6, 2003</h3>, Mr.
Libby inserted himself even more in the press response to Mr. Wilson. On July 7, he
disclosed the information <b>about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to Ari Fleischer</b>, then the
White House press secretary, in what Mr. Fleischer described as a “weird lunch.” The next
morning, Mr. Libby disclosed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment again
to reporter Miller. Mr. Libby provided information about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Wilson on the
condition that any attribution <b>disguise him as a “former Hill staffer.”</b> Later that week, Mr.
Page 11
Libby confirmed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to reporter Matt
Cooper, who had first learned the information from Karl Rove.
The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby
kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned
about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. The evidence <b>proved that Mr. Libby invented a
conversation about Ms. Wilson’s employment with Mr. Russert, lied about other
conversations with other officials and reporters and claimed not to have known the
information</b> he was spreading to reporters about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment was true.
Mr. Libby even went so far as to claim that he was “surprised” and “taken aback” by what
Mr. Russert had told him about Ms. Wilson and the CIA on July 10, and to claim that Mr.
Libby did not even know at the time of his conversations with reporters that Mr. Wilson had
a wife. Mr. Libby also claimed to have a clear memory <h3>that the only topic he did not discuss
with the Vice President in the aftermath of the Wilson Op Ed was Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment.</h3>
Second, it is <b>undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigation
that two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove)</h3> in addition to Mr. Libby had
disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the
sources for columnist Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed
Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to
Page 12
determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including – but
not limited to – Mr. Novak.
From these facts, <h3>it is argued either that the entire investigation should have been
quickly terminated or that it was inappropriate that at the end of the investigation only Mr.
Libby was charged. We address both arguments below.</h3>
<b>1. Termination of the Investigation</b>
The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation
warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny.
First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that <h3>Ms. Wilson qualified under the
relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity
had been disclosed by public officials</h3>, including Mr. Libby, to the press. Early in the
investigation, however, the critical issue remained as to precisely what the particular officials
knew about Ms. Wilson’s status and what the officials intended when they disclosed her
identity to the media. Moreover, in assessing the intent of these individuals, it was necessary
to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known
to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and
also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others.
This was particularly <h3>important in light of Mr. Libby’s statement to the FBI that he may have
discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President.</h3>
Page 13
Finally, it remained to be determined whether the accounts of various persons who
disclosed the information to the media were truthful, and, if not, whether any false statement
made could be proven to be intentionally false. In that vein, it became apparent at an early
stage of the investigation that <b>Mr. Libby’s account was sharply contradicted by the accounts
of other witnesses, most notably Tim Russert. The investigation thus appropriately continued</b>
for several months after the October 2003 disclosures by Messrs. Armitage, Rove and Libby,
under the direction of then Attorney General Ashcroft, until late December 2003 when
Special Counsel was appointed.
The investigation then continued for the same reasons. It also bears note that <h3>although certain
of Mr. Libby’s supporters have suggested that it was improper for the investigation to continue
without publicly disclosing what Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby admitted in interviews or
before the grand jury, maintaining the confidentiality of witness statements and testimony was
not only required by law, but was an appropriate and routine investigative practice that protected
witnesses’ privacy, reduced the risk that witnesses would influence each others’ recollections and
testimony, and protected the reputations of uncharged persons.</h3>
To accept the argument that Mr. Libby’s prosecution is the inappropriate product of
an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, <h3>one must accept the
proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking
government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information
about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly
Page 14
contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant
activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby
himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice
President.</h3> <h2>To state this claim is to refute it.</h2> Peremptorily closing this investigation in the
face of the information available at its early stages <h3>would have been a dereliction of duty, and
would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary
persons implicated in criminal investigations.</h3>
<b>2. Prosecution of Mr. Libby for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury in
the Absence of a Prosecution of Any Person for the Underlying
Disclosure of Classified Information</b>
Nor is it of any consequence to Mr. Libby’s conduct – perjury and obstruction of
justice – that others may have engaged in similar disclosures of classified information for
which neither Mr. Libby nor they were charged. At the end of the investigation, after all the
information was gathered – including testimony of the reporters and relevant documents –
a decision was made not to pursue substantive charges for the disclosure of classified
information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.
This fact does not support the logical leap
that investigators knew at the beginning of the investigation that no such charges would be
brought, nor does it have any bearing on the propriety of Mr. Libby’s prosecution for perjury.
While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other
persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly
relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson
Page 15
included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a
confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the
reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence
specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. <b>On the other
hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could be prosecuted
in a relatively straightforward trial.</b> As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re
Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2006), “insofar as false
testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification of culprits, perjury in this
context is itself a crime with national security implications. What’s more, because the
charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame’s exposure,
prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.”
Finally, the suggestion that there is something unusual or inappropriate about pursuing
a prosecution for a crime of obstruction where the underlying crime is not prosecuted is a red
herring <h3>(and oddly suggests that Mr. Libby’s prosecution would not have been “wrongful”
if only the government had brought more charges against him or others).</h3> Such perjury
prosecutions are hardly unusual; indeed, <b>as the Supreme Court noted in Mandujano, our
system of justice would break down if witnesses were allowed to lie with impunity.</b> This is
especially true where the lies at issue succeeded in preventing the investigators from
determining with confidence what had occurred.
Page 16
In light of the foregoing, the assertions offered in mitigation are <h3>consistent with an
effort by Mr. Libby’s supporters to shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct
and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained “political”
reasons.</h3> The assertions provide no basis for Mr. Libby to receive a reduced sentence.
The record should be clear that the grand jury investigation was conducted fairly and in
appropriate secrecy; <h3>Mr. Libby had ample legal resources and talent available to him to raise
all appropriate legal challenges and mount a legal defense</h3>; the Court provided Mr. Libby
substantial opportunity to follow through on the defense he proffered; and the jury carefully
and dispassionately weighed the evidence over the course of many days and convicted on
four counts and acquitted on another. <h3>While the disappointment of Mr. Libby’s friends and
supporters is understandable, it is inappropriate to deride the judicial process as “politics at
its worst” on behalf of a defendant who, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable
doubt, showed contempt for the judicial process when he obstructed justice by repeatedly
lying under oath about material matters in a serious criminal investigation.</h3>
<b>IV. Conclusion</b>
Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and
blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of
a covert intelligence officer’s identity. <h3>He has shown no regret for his actions, which
significantly impeded the investigation. Mr. Libby’s prosecution was based not upon politics
but upon his own conduct, as well as upon a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial
Page 17
system’s independence from politics:</h3> that any witness, whatever his political affiliation,
whatever his views on any policy or national issue, <h2>whether he works in the White House or
drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth</h2> when he raises his hand and takes an oath
in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers. <h3>The
judicial system has not corruptly mistreated Mr. Libby; Mr. Libby has been found by a jury
of his peers to have corrupted the judicial system.
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that Mr. Libby should be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment within the applicable range of 30 to 37 months</h3> as set
forth in a separate memorandum being filed today addressing the sentencing guidelines
calculations. It is respectfully submitted that the sentencing range is reasonable and
appropriate and that the Court should determine the precise sentence within that range in
light of all the factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-5300
Dated: May 25, 2007
|
You can read Libby's defense team's unsuccessful pleadings to the court here:
It is important to note that the Probation Service's pre-sentencing report on Libby has not been released. We can gain insight into it's unusual (unprecedented...one of a kind...) preferential consideration of Libby, by the frequent citing of it by Libby's attorneys in the pleadings linked below. It shows such concern for convicted felon Libby, that it cannot be viewed as legitimate or impartial work product of a DOJ agency that is not known, in other cases, for anything like what the defense represents that it determined about Libby.
...and Libby showed no remorse and was unapologetic at sentencing:
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...bby_06-05.html
Originally Aired: June 5, 2007
Analysis
Libby Sentenced to More Than Two Years in CIA Leak Case
......JIM LEHRER: And that he thought the evidence proved the case, that he had lied about what he knew about what was going on at the time, correct?
CAROL LEONNIG: Absolutely. The judge also, you know, as you know, has a reputation as a "by the book," sort of long-ball hitter kind of judge, who is pretty hard on criminals, whether they're white-collar or violent criminals. And what he said to Scooter Libby today was that he agreed with the prosecution, that the prison sentence should be increased because of the seriousness of the investigation that Scooter Libby impeded, and also because the lies that he told forever shielded from the public the knowledge of whether those crimes were committed by Mr. Libby, the leaks, or by someone else.
JIM LEHRER: What did Libby say on his behalf in open court today?
CAROL LEONNIG: Well, you know, I've covered a lot of sentencings, and I found his comments really interesting. First of all, he was unflinching, as he was when the verdict was read, and throughout this experience he's been sort of an emotionless person.
He said that he was very grateful to the court personnel for all their help to him while he had been in the courthouse for the last year-and-a-half. And, finally, he said he just hoped the judge would take into consideration his own life and not just the jury's verdict.
But, again, <b>what I found striking was that Scooter Libby never said, "I'm sorry" or "I did something wrong" or "I made a mistake and I'll never do it again." Most defendants say that, and he did not.</b>
JIM LEHRER: Would Judge Walton have expected that and wanted that, as well, do you think?
CAROL LEONNIG: I think so. <b>I think most federal judges I've seen on the bench want to see some contrition and remorse, if only because it's an indicator that someone's acknowledged what a jury has found to be true.</b>
JIM LEHRER: Now, how do you read the judge's take on what happens next on this issue, the request from the defense to let Libby remain free while the appeal is decided?
CAROL LEONNIG: Well, it's also striking. I mean, I was talking to some legal experts today after the hearing. And the judge definitely broke away from the increasing trend in federal courts to release white-collar criminals pending their appeal and let them be free. The law sort of presumes that Scooter Libby will go to prison immediately after sentencing, but the trend has been in the other direction.
And Judge Walton went, again, by the book and said his feeling was, "You should go to prison immediately after sentencing," but after the defense pleaded with the judge to reconsider, he said, "OK, I'll listen to you for another week, and I'll decide next week at a hearing."
JIM LEHRER: And is this solely at the discretion of the judge? Can that be appealed itself?
CAROL LEONNIG: It's at his discretion. There can be back-and-forth over it, but ultimately it's his discretion.
JIM LEHRER: OK. Carol Leonnig, again, thank you very much.
CAROL LEONNIG: Thank you, Jim.....
|
....further in the link in the preceding quote box.... National Review's Byron York and The Nation's David Corn, engage in a debate identical to the one that <b>I am trying</b> to engage here.... |