* "Francine Busby is polling very well against a massive array of Republicans (in Duke's seat). With a ticket this large, it's unlikely that she'll come out of the special election with better than 50%, and will face a run-off during California's primary in June. But a very strong showing by Busby in this very Republican district will put some juice will have a tremendous nation-wide impact." (link)
* apparently olbermann and shuster read down the list of libby folks named in the filing and didnt read out Hadley's name - even though he is on the list. jeralyn has the list.
* btw - speaking of TWOT, one other thing i hate is "the terrorists" - its a stupid construct and i demand that everyone stop using it immediately.
* speaking of stupid constructs, this from the Inky: "A March 2003 poll from the Program on International Policy Studies showed 66 percent of Americans favored invading Iraq; 32 percent opposed it. No close call there."
real democracy is supposed to protect us from the tryanny of the majority. war isn't sposed to be a popularity contest.
* clemons: " Hadley has essentially denied that he was the source."
bzzzz. wrong.
* jeralyn on Moussaoui: "I suspect the Judge will end the trial by ruling against the Government when the Defense makes a motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case. The Government will not have shown that but for Moussaoui's lies to the FBI, even one person would not have died. His connection to 9/11 is too peripheral and it's also doubtful that even with his information, the attacks would have been prevented. Moussaoui just wasn't in the fold. A bumbling holy warrior who intended to do damage at some point, yes. But one of those responsible for the 9/11 deaths, no."
* ""Remember, Iran is just one instance of the problem, and in Iran's case, containment might work," says Brent Scowcroft, who was the national security adviser to Mr. Bush's father. "But if that happens, I think we are on the way to a world of proliferation like we have not seen before."" (link)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I certainly hope the defense doesn't do this.
I've been wondering if disgruntled civil servants in the DoJ and the FBI have been intentionally sabotaging the gov't's case here in order to let the defense call witnesses that can speak truth about 9/11. In other words, while I am sure that Gonzales and Bush would like to see Moussaoui die, they'd much rather like less to see certain witnesses testify at this trial. I think the whole TSA flap was a preemptive strike to not only protect AA and UAL, but also to just get the whole trial shut down so the defense couldn't cross-examine gov't witnesses/introduce their own witnesses that question the events of 9/11.
Consider how eager Agent Samit testified to the FBI's "incomepetence" yesteday, on CROSS for cryin' out loud. Normally a gov't witness would begrudgingly admit certain flaws in the gov't's case, and usually would qualify any statements. Doesn't sound like Samit did this yesterday.
If I were the defense, I would not make the motion, cause I know that the jury's already on my side. Then I'd bring out the REAL big guns.
Unfortunately, I think Moussaoui's lawyer is bound by ethical standards TO make this motion (it would be bordering on malpractice if he didn't). So maybe again, the whole purpose of sabotaging the gov't's case was to prevent the defense from calling damaging witnesses.
Post a Comment