Libby Guilty

I haven't been following this case closely enough to have any intelligent direct comments. I DO know enough about the Plame "leak" case to know it's full of [garbage], but often non-cases get people into trouble when they try to overdefend, feeling it's justified because the accusors are so full of it.

If Libby had a suspiciously selective memory, jerked investigators around, and fibbed under oath, I'm glad he was found guilty, no matter how stupid the original cause of the investigation was. I don't know enough to say he wasn't, and so I'll leave the outrage to others better informed. I'm not one of those people (say, for example, Clinton apologists) who thinks perjury is less serious just because the thing lied about isn't serious (say, for example, sex) - perjury is a direct assault on the entire system of due process, and should be mercilessly weeded out, no matter what the lie was about. I don't care which President or party or elections it hurts. I don't have any sympathy for perjurers no matter how sympathetic the witness or how obnoxious, overbearing, or abusive the prosecutor.

But I am bothered by some of the juror comments. I'm bothered by some of the legal rulings, and bothered that the jury seemed to be confused about some material facts and the narrowness of the issues they seemed to have considered. I'm bothered by the political nature of the original investigation. But that's why we have an appeals process.

Whether Libby is guilty or not, I don't know. What I DO know is that the fact Joe Wilson is running around doing Vanity Fair pictorials while Libby faces jail time is absurd. David Frum puts it best:

Scooter Libby is convicted in the Plame leak case. The man who actually did the leaking continues to earn millions of dollars, go out to dinner, and be respectfully quoted by attentive journalists.

Scooter Libby is publicly branded an oath-breaker on the basis of diverging recollections. Yet it was the man who set this case in motion, former ambassador Joe Wilson, who was caught in lie after lie by the Senate Intelligence committee.

Frum also noted the penalties Clinton suffered for his perjury, including all the jail time HE had to serve.

More cogent (if partisan) running reax on NRO's the Corner.

Michelle Malkin has updating reporting and more links.

A more diverse smattering of opinion compiled at RealClearPolitics.

Nifong The Victim

"He's devastated. It's very upsetting to be attacked. It's like he's public enemy No. 1," said David Freedman, Nifong's attorney.

Awwww... It's so saaaaad. Well gosh, Mr. Nifong. Maybe you should have thought of that before you violated ethics, discovery, and media communications rules in order to railroad some kids in a cynical race-baiting political maneuver. At least now he knows how the victims of his prosecutorial abuse felt. Thank God they had the means to fight back, both in the media and in the courtroom.

If there's real justice in the world, Nifong won't just get disbarred - he'll live forever in infamy in every Professional Responsibility casebook in every law school in the country. I wouldn't count on it, though - then law professors might have to admit that sometimes whites can be victims of racial politics, too.

I never understood why this case was anything more than a blip on the national news radar, until Publius pointed it out. One of the liberal articles of faith is that rich white people run around and oppress poor black victims whenever they can, especially in the South. Because actual examples of this are increasingly hard to find, when a story that reinforces that mode of belief comes along, the liberal MSM will blow it up into ridiculous proportions. And because it's what they expect to see in the world, there's no need for healthy skepticism, fact checking, balance, or any other journalistic skill they were supposedly taught. Rich white southern boys rape poor black stripper student? Well, duh! That's the sun rising in the east!

Nifong, of course, counted on this MSM complicity, and rode it all the way to re-election. Nothing like a little race baiting to score a few votes - so what if innocent people are flayed because of the color of their skin!

At this point, no one is defending Nifong, except apparently, his attorney helped out by the above linked ABC softball piece. Well, that and a bunch of isolated college professors who aren't about to let the truth get in the way of their social views. But it's important to remember that Nifong was only exposed, despite the best efforts of his abettors in the media and academia who want to shape our perception of the world as racist, because they accidentally picked on victims with the means - and evidence - to defend themselves. As long as we as a society continue to give race baiters a pass so long as they're the right color, the Duke lacrosse players won't be the last victims of this kind of abuse.

So There WAS Ohio Voter Fraud...

The liberals were right. And I guess they would know. Because they were the ones who committed the fraud.

Somehow, though, it'll all be Karl Rove's fault...

Blogging and Professional Responsibility

One of the "guest diarists" at the Daily Kos quit in a huff yesterday after he claimed to have had his secret identity "outed" by National Review in a typical Right Wing Conspiracy plot. Of course, his identity wasn't that secret, and his real reason for quitting might have more to do with the Kossack Crowd being unimpressed with his ties to something that rhymes with "Bal*Mart":

Apparently, [Daily]Kos diarist Armando Lloréns-Sar isn't comfortable with too many people knowing about his day job as an attorney at McConnell Valdés (it's clearly the same guy):

...Lloréns-Sar might be uncomfortable with too many people knowing about his professional activities (he threatened to ban one commenter for getting too close to his "personal circumstances"):

During his time filling in for Kos as the "front page diarist" he wrote a number of pro-corporate articles, of course without disclosing that he is a corporate attorney promoting these same issues for his clients. For example, in this post he takes the pro-corporate position that modern anti-trust law is based on activist judges' rulings and not as the law as written. He fails to mention that he recently represented Wal-Mart in an anti-trust capacity in Puerto Rico.

H/T WuzzaDem, whose emphases those are.

As much fun as it is to gloat at the silliness of the Kos types, the story really made me think in broader terms of what's acceptable for an attorney who, say, might want to blog about legal issues. What obligations do you have to your clients? To your firm? What duties of disclosure do you have towards your blogging audience? What does the crusty old judge at the ethics board of inquiry who's never heard of a blog think? Does it matter that you do it on your own time? Or anonymously?

I did some research earlier this year on "Doocing," the firing of an employee for un-careful blogging. It's amazing how easy it is for someone to find your real identity, either by doing a little digging, or by simply getting a subpoena for the ISP. A corporate client who happens to run across something unflattering on a hugely popular website (or unpopular, but still public) would seem to me to be a danger, and something to think about.

But what if it's just a more general legal issue, one that you were inspired to muse about because a case you were working on dealt with that issue? Is that allowed? Should it be? How general does the issue have to be? Does it impact your ability to represent your client? Can a client trust a blogging attorney not to tell their story on line with a, "for example, I had a client once..."? How much detail can you go into about your work day on a blog without violating the PR rules? Does a pseudonym protect you?

This is actually one of the reasons I post here under my real name - I don't want to lull myself into a false sense of anonymity. And it makes clear that what I write I have to answer for, which (usually and hopefully) makes me a little more cautious about what and how I write. That's not to say a nomme de plume doesn't have a time or place - the Federalist Papers weren't written by 1800 year old Romans, after all.

The Kossack writer was a fool, though. He was indiscreet, apparently bitterly acerbic and rude (even to his fellow travelers), used his real first name, and littered the internet with personal details that made him easy to find, including his E-mail address when he tried to edit some Wikipedia entries about the Daily Kos. I don't know the answers to all of this, but one things for certain - Armando is a great example of what a lawyer should NOT do on line.

"Apologies"

Well, Representative McKinney issued what she's calling an "apology" today. It's not. And it's a good example of what politicians (and others) do when they screwed up, are too proud to admit it, but need to be politically expedient. You can tell a lot about someone's character by the way they apologize for something. Here's McKinney's:

"I come before this body to personally express, again, my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution and who love this country. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement, and will be voting for H. Res. 756 expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation. And I apologize."

So she once again expresses "regret." She did that before, in between her many dealt hands of race cards. OK. But my favorite is this phrase: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident." I love it. It's not, "I shouldn't have hit the cop who was just doing his job." It was "I shouldn't have hit him, but he's equally if not more culpable because he ALSO made physical contact." Blaming the victim, even in part, is NOT an apology.

Then she refers to it as a "misunderstanding". It's not a misunderstanding. The cop understood that someone he didn't recognize and didn't have the right ID was rushing his checkpoint, and didn't stop when asked. He did his job, and she hit him. And then she called him a racist. And SHE was the only one who "escalated" anything. But again she used the passive voice, attempting to paint it as an unfortunate event over which she had no control. "There happened to be an escalation. To the extent that I don't like seeing that kind of thing, I'm sorry it happened." And the statement that she "has always supported law enforcement" is simply untrue. When you call the whole system of law enforcement racist, misogynistic practicers of racial profiling, that's not a show of support. (It makes me wonder if she also "supports our troops." If this is how she defines "support," it suddenly all makes sense.)

When politicians apologize, especially when they say stupid, racist, or offensive things, they always say, "I apologize if anyone was offended." Again, the underlying statement is, "I didn't do anything wrong. If you happen to be offended, I'm sorry that such a circumstance, which I am not responsible for, just happened to occur." They also really like to quickly add a "but." There's no such thing as a sincere apology with a "but" tacked on to it. "I'm sorry I wasn't completely forthright about an 'inappropriate relationship,' but none of this would have happened if it wasn't for Ken Starr. It's all his fault! And now that I've said I'm sorry, I can no longer be judged for this." What rubbish. Anyone who thinks this is sincere, well, I have some ocean view property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

I hope the indictment goes forward, and I honestly hope she spends some time in jail.

The only believable apology would be this:

"I apologize for hitting the officer. He was doing exactly the right thing, and good for him for stopping me. I was wrong to ignore him, and wrong to hit him. But I am most ashamed of my actions afterwards. I acted like a coward, and made accusations of racism that are unfounded and unfair. I did this to protect myself politically. I am ashamed of myself. I've personally apologized to the officer. Also, I apologize for hiring a bodyguard, which was another political stunt, and even more for hiring one who would threaten a member of the news media. I am no longer worthy to hold this seat or to represent honorable people, and so today I am resigning from my seat. My presence harms America's perceptions of black leadership in this country, and so I can only hope my actions will in some way remedy this view. Thank you."

I won't hold my breath.

A Matter of Character

I'm glad that the Capitol Police are seeking an indictment of Representative McKinney for her assault on one of their officers the other day.

How selfish! How cowardly! I don't care how much racial profiling she thinks exists in this country - she messed up, and messed up big time. It would only have taken her a few seconds to show her identification. But instead, HER time was so valuable that she was entitled to run a security checkpoint. She not wearing proper identification. She ignored the repeated warnings to stop. She could have prevented the confrontation at any time. And then she was so incensed that the cop had the temerity to do his job properly, that she punched him in the chest, slapped his face, or hit him with a cell phone, depending on the version you read.

The fact that she would even consider doing such a thing speaks enough of her arrogance. But the fact that she now blames the cop, society, racism, President Bush, the boogey man - EVERYONE but herself (she's expressed "regret" but has refused to apologize) says all that needs to be said about her character. Apparently, because there are race issues in our society, she's entitled to physically abuse a person who risks his life to keep her safe. I guess it also means she has no responsibility for her actions, and that any bad thing she does is society's fault. What are we supposed to take away from this example of leadership? What are young black children in her district supposed to learn from her behavior?

The irony is that the officer represents the "little guy" here. He's just a regular guy, doing his job, and making a living. He's charged with an awesome task - allowing the public access to see their government in action while somehow trying to identify and exclude people who might want to harm that government. For her not to recognize the position he was in, and the impossible choice she forced on him - she represents everything you DON'T want in a leader.

She should have thanked him for his vigilance, not called him a racist. I'm glad the Capitol Police are refusing to bow to her official pressure and are pressing charges against her. The men and women who labor in that environment must have the reassurance that when they make a split-second, reasonable call with the safety (not convenience) of hundreds of people in mind, that they will not be left hanging in the wind. Otherwise, the seat of our government will be far less safe, something bad will happen, and then the public will have less access to their representatives.

I don't know what's worse - her refusal to accept ANY responsibility, or the people who support her as she wallows in her disgusting display of selfishness, arrogance, lack of grace and class, and her gross abuse of her position of power.

Chuztpah, Thy Name is Hillary

Here's Hillary Clinton's take on the Dick Cheney non-story:

"The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."

Holy friggin' cow.

This coming from the wife of a man suspended from the bar for perjury, from a woman who failed to report Vince Foster's suicide note to the media until 30 hours after the fact and his house had been sanitized, and from someone who has still failed to explain how Rose Law Firm documents she swore were destroyed ended up in her White House bedroom.

Unbelievable. Or not.

This, of course, despite the fact that Cheney immediately ensured his victim had emergency medical care, that he immediately notified the local sherrif, and immediately told the rancher on whose land they were hunting that he could tell the local media.