Knowing how much Bush loves those primetime speeches, I'm betting he's revving up the immigration drum Monday night because he's looking for something to drown out the celebrations of Fitzmas throughout the land.
One thing I found frankly amusing was the fact that some in the right wing are obsessed with the Big Case vs Little Case. So you ask, what's the Little Case? That's Fitzgerald prosecuting Scooter for his lies and obstruction of justice. Gee, we lefties would like Fitzgerald to prosecute the "Big Case" too: proving the case that the Bush administration lied to take the country to war. But, that's not Byron York's definition of the Big Case. He thinks the Big Case is that Valerie Plame wasn't outed because she wasn't a secret CIA agent. Duh. I guess that is why Fitzgerald submitted the following to the court (h/t to Booman):
The July 14 Chicago Sun Times column by Mr. Novak is relevant because on the day the article was published, a CIA official was asked in the defendant’s [ed. Libby's] presence, by another person in the OVP, whether that CIA official had read that column. (The CIA official had not.) At some time thereafter, as discussed briefly at the March 5 oral argument, the CIA official discussed in the defendant’s presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column. This evidence directly contradicts the defense position that the defendant had no motive to lie because at the time of his interview and testimony the defendant thought that neither he nor anyone else had done anything wrong.
Those damn facts keep having a liberal bias.
What's your theory?