IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you...

[alaricthegoth]

@Bricker

LOL!

My best year, I had thirty-one trials. Nineteen walked on the top count of the indictment or information, which was the best record in the office for that year. Eleven were outright acquittals, all charges dismissed, away you go.

Given the material I had to work with… that wasn’t too shabby.
).

Nots too shabby? Not TOO shabby?? NOT TOO SHABBY !!!

You are Clarence Fuckin’ Darrow…

[Bricker]

@alaricthegoth

Nots too shabby? Not TOO shabby?? NOT TOO SHABBY !!!

You are Clarence Fuckin’ Darrow…

Well… above average, maybe.

It’s actually good to hear you say that; I’ve shared that percentage with people whose idea of successful criminal defense came from “L.A. Law” and “The Practice.” They were polite enough, but obviously thought I was close to abject failure for having two-thirds of my trial clients go to jail.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Well… above average, maybe.

It’s actually good to hear you say that; I’ve shared that percentage with people whose idea of successful criminal defense came from “L.A. Law” and “The Practice.” They were polite enough, but obviously thought I was close to abject failure for having two-thirds of my trial clients go to jail.

Er… you were clear that the eleven was a subset of the nineteen, right?

[alaricthegoth]

More on that if I ever post after three or four simgle-malts.

Let me drop some ergot in those single-malts and we might yet save your sorry soul.

[alaricthegoth]

@Bricker

Er… you were clear that the eleven was a subset of the nineteen, right?

That did get by me–maybe you are Mr. Johnny–(but how bad is that?)

[alaricthegoth]

actually, I don’t think Clarence could have walked OJ

[Bricker]

@alaricthegoth

That did get by me–maybe you are Mr. Johnny–(but how bad is that?)

Yes, just to be crystal clear:

31 trials

11 outright acquittal
8 guilty of lesser charges but acquitted on top count
12 guilty of top count

Believe me when I say that given what I had to work with, those were good numbers.

[alaricthegoth]

without doubt. (thanks for walking me through it, I believe I have impaired my math center inadvertantly --I was aiming to impair some other center)

if I am not misiformed, an acquittal rate of over 1/3 is about double plus a smidge on the average for trial outcomes.

[alaricthegoth]

linton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson’s resignation came as two Senate Republicans joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency’s warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

Hagel and Snowe joined Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

For something that was supposed to be of marginal criminality, and dubious political impact, this is certainly turing into a shitstorm for George

[alaricthegoth]

May we pause a moment in the midst of our (intense) schadenfreude, and reflect on what a hopeless PUNK Jay Rockefeller is:

"But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. “I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed,” Rockefeller said. “The White House never addressed my concerns.”

John D. is spinning in his grave to see his descendant descend so low.

[John_Mace]

There was an interesting segment on today’s New Hour w/ Jim Leher (on PBS). Gwen Ifil interviewed two legal experts, one a former Bush justice dept. attorney who was defending Bush’s action. He stated that the 15 calendar days in subchapter 1811 refered to the first 15 days of a war, not for any 15 day period during a war.

[treis]

@John Mace

There was an interesting segment on today’s New Hour w/ Jim Leher (on PBS). Gwen Ifil interviewed two legal experts, one a former Bush justice dept. attorney who was defending Bush’s action. He stated that the 15 calendar days in subchapter 1811 refered to the first 15 days of a war, not for any 15 day period during a war.

Of course it does, there is no other way to read the statute as it is written.

[alaricthegoth]

Another republican heard from:

. The impeccably conservative legal scholar and former Reagan aide Bruce Fein explained the deep implications of the President’s arrogance:“If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, ‘I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want—I don’t need to consult any other branches,’ that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.”

http://www.observer.com/opinions_conason-2.asp

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Well, it’s my considered judgement that it was simply an honest accident.

Care to tell us what you “considered” vs. what you chose to dismiss, in reaching that “judgment”, one which you assert as bald fact?

I am perhaps perdisposed to give the benefit of the doubt, and that colors MY thinking.

You are predisposed, certainly, but that isn’t quite what you’re predisposed to, is it?

But it’s always for the person offering the assertion to provide evidence.

Indeed it is - and if the evidence is all on one side, it is for the person who insists that the other side is factual to provide something more than handwaving and denial in support of that assertion, isn’t it?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Well, it’s my considered judgement that it was simply an honest accident.

I think you are predisposed to believe wrongdoing, and that colors your judgement. I am perhaps perdisposed to give the benefit of the doubt, and that colors MY thinking.

But it’s always for the person offering the assertion to provide evidence.

Here’s one more piece of evidence:

@U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Luttig

The government has held Padilla militarily for three and a half years, steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security that he be so held. However, a short time after our decision issued on the government’s representation that Padilla’s military custody was indeed necessary in the interest of national security, the government determined that it was no longer necessary that Padilla be held militarily.

....In a plea that was notable given that the government had held Padilla militarily for three and a half years and that the Supreme Court was expected within only days either to deny certiorari or to assume jurisdiction over the case for eventual disposition on the merits, the government urged that we act as expeditiously as possible to authorize the transfer [to a civilian court]. The government styled its motion as an “emergency application,” but it provided no explanation as to what comprised the asserted exigency.

They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror — an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant.

And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.

What this is all about: in September, you surely recall, the 4th Circuit ruled that the government could detain Padilla in a indefinitely without charges even though he was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil.

As Kevin Drum says, there was just one hitch:

this being the United States, wartime or no, Padilla could appeal his detention to the Supreme Court, and there was a chance that the Supremes might not be as accomodating as the conservative 4th Circuit.

So the Justice Department came up with a brainstorm: at the last minute, it asked the 4th Circuit to vacate the government’s big victory and transfer Padilla to the civilian court system, where they planned to charge him not with being a dirty bomber, not even with planning to blow up apartment buildings, but with a humdrum variety of low-level conspiracy charges.

And Michael Luttig, one of the bright lights of the conservative judiciary, clearly thinks the Bush Administration is playing games with him.

Full (pdf) decision here.

This is what they do all the time. Why exactly should I give them the benefit of the doubt? There’s a clear pattern of conduct by these guys. Of course I’m predisposed to believe their wrongdoing.

Let’s say I’m a teacher, and have a student who frequently fails to turn in his homework, making one excuse or another. When he shows up tomorrow sans homework, why should I give tomorrow’s excuse the benefit of the doubt? You’re saying we ought not consider the pattern of past misconduct; I’m saying that’s fine in court, but bullshit everywhere else.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

What this is all about: in September, you surely recall, the 4th Circuit ruled that the government could detain Padilla in a indefinitely without charges even though he was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil.

And Michael Luttig, one of the bright lights of the conservative judiciary, clearly thinks the Bush Administration is playing games with him.

And the same person that came up with this plan was the one responsible for the wiretapping?

Are you suggesting Bush personally crafted this legal strategy?

Or is this a more general, “Well, all those guys are part of the same administration, so opne wrong act by one can fairly be imputed to them all?”

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

And the same person that came up with this plan was the one responsible for the wiretapping?

Are you suggesting Bush personally crafted this legal strategy?

Or is this a more general, “Well, all those guys are part of the same administration, so opne wrong act by one can fairly be imputed to them all?”

No, the legal principle is that Mr. Bush is responsible for the acts of those who serve under him, unless he explicitly disavows illegal actions of which he had no knowledge. In his own words, “It happened on my watch.”

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

And the same person that came up with this plan was the one responsible for the wiretapping?

Are you suggesting Bush personally crafted this legal strategy?

Or is this a more general, “Well, all those guys are part of the same administration, so opne wrong act by one can fairly be imputed to them all?”

I’m saying that the pushing of every last envelope seems to be standard operational procedure for this Administration, without regard to specific areas. Doesn’t matter whether they’re playing shell games with prisoners, or concealing the truth about the cost of the Medicare drug benefit. Where should I expect that to flow from but the person in the big office?

[ElvisL1ves]

Try this: Bricker, what doubt do you see still left to give Bush the benefit of?

And this too: Is there *anything * done by the Bush Administration that you’d hold Bush responsible for? Why or why not?

[E-Sabbath]

Bricker? How would you consider these assertions of Bush’s, in regards to the Truman era Youngstown vs Sawyer?

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.