As a practicing criminal lawyer for the past 28 years after obtaining a law degree with honors and an advanced (Master's)degree in law from Stanford Law School in constitutional legal theories, I find this judge's order to be ridiculous. By seeking to quash the subpoena, Wilson's lawyer appeared before the judge in the criminal case on behalf of a witness, and not on behalf of either the parties in the criminal case. The issue before the judge was whether the subpoena served on Wilson had been issued solely to annoy or harass Wilson, which Wilson's lawyers argue is the case because Wilson claims not to have any knowledge of any fact that would tend to prove whether Libby had lied to the Grand Jury, which is the precise crime for which Libby is being prosecuted. The rule cited by the judge to justify his decision applies to lawyers who act on behalf of a criminal case's party litigants, who have access to factual information concerning the criminal case brought against Libby in large part from reports prepared by law enforcement officers or investigators acting who read those reports in order to prepare for the criminal trial. Wilson's lawyer has no such access to the police reports or reports by criminal investigators, and is no less entitled to express her opinion about what type of evidence is or may be relevant to proving the charge against Libby than any of the dozens of legal commentators who have opined about a host of criminal cases and trials in the press, on TV, and on the Internet (E.g., Enron, O.J. Simpson, Unabomber/Kazinsky, trials of mothers who had drowned their babies, etc.) or have rendered opinions on any other legal matter that is of general public interest. In brief, a judge has the power to prevent public disclosure by criminal litigants or their attorneys, who have access to special knowledge of the facts to be presented at the criminal trial, including those disclosed by law enforcement agencies, but a criminal trial judge has absolutely no power whatsoever to bar others from giving their legal opinions about the case. In this case, Wilson's lawyer's response to the question posed of her was a correct statement of the law, not a public disclosure of protected factual information assembled by prosecutors or Libby's defense team. This ruling is clearly erroneous and will be overturned.

I saw the discussion on Hardball tonight about the prospect of Cheney testifying to defend his aide de camp, Libby. Having followed this case closely from the beginning and having listened to the Libby/Cheney apologists defend the indefensible act of outing a CIA agent, including the ludicrous claim that she "wasn't undercover at the time", which even if true would fail to take into account the number of people she met and worked with along the way who might be in jeopardy, I'm sad to say that I doubt that Cheney's testimony will enlighten any of us about anything he doesn't want us to know. It's not just that our illustrious VP appears to have little regard for factual information, but that he clearly believes that America needs to be run by an oligarchy, not elected officials responsible to their constituents. Consequently, thinking his judgement not only superior to the hoi poloi, but necessary to the survival of the state as he sees it, he will feel no compunction whatsoever to tell the truth as we might define it. If Cheney and his merry band of neo cons actually took into account such things as the public will, not to mention outright failure, they would now be chastened. Instead, while Cheney remains as cloaked as the Wizard of Oz speaking only to the enlightened few who endorse him, his emmisaries continue to make the rounds as talking heads on shows like Hardball blaming everyone but themselves for their abysmal track record and calling for an expansion of their fantastical and fanatical visions for the future. Although I look forward to any and all investigations of the Bush Administration's growing list of abuses of power and failure of policies, trials and exposes are not enough. At a certain point those still standing on the side of sanity have to forcibly intervene. We'll see if Congress has the mettle. If not, button your seatbelts for a very turbulent two years.

The Dems think Scooter Libby committed a serious crime,of what I don't know. Lying under oath is what they tell me. But they really wanted to charge him with leaking the name of a female CIA operative, Valerie Plame (who sat behind a desk) to punish her husband, Joe Wilsom, for writing an op-ed piece that bashed the Bush administration for "ginning" up the nation to go to war in Iraq. Yet we learn Libby didn't leak her name. Cheney didn't leak her name. Richard Armitage leaked her name. Case closed wouldn't you think? But no, now taxpayers have to cough up millions so the Dems can go on a witch hunt, that if all goes well for them, will dirty Cheney and Bush and provide a path towards impeachment, their ultimate goal with the Plame case to begin with. Could someone tell me why this would be a good thing for the country when our enemy will at some point, if they haven't already, get their hands on some yellow cake, build a dirty bomb or detonate a real nuke in a major US city and kill millions? What a pointless exercise. Joe Wilson and the Dems get their pound of flesh and we get nuked anyways. Just who is "ginning" up who with this bogus case against Libby?

You may also track down what you are searching for in text books.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):