Also, yesterday afternoon (3:45) the jury asked for another post-it flip chart pad.
We would like another big Post-it pad. The large one for the easel.
Someone has been in too many business brainstorming sessions, I think. Jokes in the media room about "The Libby Trial, brought to you by Post-It." The jury is starting another day of deliberations. No word yet on a verdict — you'll know as soon as we know. And in the meantime…
Remember a few weeks ago, when Jim Marcinkowski challenged Ted Wells to put his punk on the stand –either one of them. Well, it seems like Marcinkowski is a little bit irked that Wells didn't do so. Because he really lays the slapdown on Victoria Toensing in this post at No Quarter. He starts by reminding her (and who should have to remind Toensing of this, after her rants about Clinton?) that perjury is a crime.
Second, to allege that there first must be an underlying crime to bring a perjury charge is flat wrong, and every first-year law student knows it. Perjury is itself a crime, period. Under the Grand Jury system, evidence is presented to a panel. If the panel decides that a crime was committed, then an indictment is issued. If not, the case ends. Either way, the evidence submitted must be the truth. You don’t get to lie to a Grand Jury. That’s pretty simple, unless of course you feel that one should be free to lie and suffer no consequence – hardly an argument that should be advanced by an attorney and officer of the court.
Marcinkowski then explains a few things about spying.
To assert that Valerie was not covert is to assert that the CIA operates public branch offices overseas. Victoria, here’s a news flash for you – there are a lot of people in this world that don’t like the United States in general and the CIA in particular. Anyone in the CIA traveling overseas would be as nuts as your op-ed to reveal that association. CIA officers and offices are placed all over the world. I really don’t recall the CIA crest adorning any office or being listed in any embassy directory. Victoria, the CIA is a spy agency, it is full of spies who spy on objects of interest to the United States. There are no non-covert spies.
To add a gloss of legitimacy, Ms. Toensing erroneously cites the law as requiring the covert agent to have had a “foreign assignment,” then concludes that Valerie was not “stationed” overseas. Nice try. The law uses neither of these descriptions as a basis for defining the criminal act of disclosing the identity of a covert agent. The law only requires that the agent have served overseas within the preceding five years of his or her disclosure. CIA officers may very well serve overseas by meeting with secret sources in third countries. The fact that they may be “stationed” or “assigned” to Washington, D.C. does not prohibit them from serving overseas by actually engaging in clandestine operations in other countries and returning thereafter to this country. Would the purpose of the law designed to protect our agents operating overseas be served by distinguishing between the two scenarios? If so, then Ms. Toensing, who claims to have assisted the Senate Intelligence Committee in drafting the law, did a very lousy job.
And finally, he hits the right note of seriousness about a officer of the court making false statements.
Rules of professional conduct for attorneys around the country make numerous references to truth telling both inside and outside the courtroom, e.g. “…an advocate must disclose the existence of perjury….” or, “…a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person…”
That about hits all the right notes, huh?