"Lying liars"

That's what lawyer David Lane just called CU regents who testified that Ward Churchill's 9/11 essay didn't influence their vote to fire him. The Post:

"I don't have to prove that the protected speech activities were the only reason they fired him - it is not an all or nothing analysis," Lane said. "I just have to show you that the 9-11 essay formed part of the reason that they fired him."

"For the sake of argument, let's say Mr. O'Rourke has proven every one of those bogus reasons they trumped up against Professor Churchill are true, that is not the end of the case from your perspective because if they used his protected speech on top of all that, then you are obligated to find for Ward Churchill," Lane continued. . . .

Lane criticized CU's witnesses and said they were untruthful about the motivation behind Churchill's dismissal.

"The regents, the lying liars, and almost all of them got on the stand - you heard them lie about what was on the table," Lane said.

Nice. Here's something I don't get:

Lane told the jury that only Judge Naves can decide on whether to reinstate Churchill to his job at CU. The jury's only consideration if they find in the former professor's favor is to whether to award damages and how much money to award him.

I've heard that before, but why does the judge decide if Wart gets his job back? Puke graf:

"What is a man's reputation worth to have been paraded through the national media, having been a distinguished scholar and a professor for 30 years to give a voice for people like dead Arabic kids in Iraq who do not have a voice in this country it's worth a hell of a lot more than a little bit of money, but that is justice."

Update: When all else fails, break out the PowerPoint:

Before the case went to the jury, CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke got to give his closing argument.

He told the jury that dealing with Ward Churchill is like entering the twisted world of Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass."

"There is the real university world and there is the Ward Churchill world," O'Rourke said. "It is a place where connecting the dots is the same as inventing the dots."

O'Rourke used a PowerPoint to go through the various charges that were leveled against the former ethnic studies professor -- including plagiarism, fabrication and falsification.

"What we saw is that Ward Churchill can justify everything and explain nothing," the lawyer told the jury. "What we have seen at the end of the day is that in Ward Churchill's world there are no standards and no accountability."

He slammed Churchill for creating his own fatality numbers regarding American Indian deaths and for claiming there was a smallpox infirmary in St. Louis.

And O'Rourke told the jury that Churchill, despite being given plenty of opportunity to do so, was never able to present evidence backing up his claims, including oral history or other unconventional sources from the American Indian community.

Well, the jury's got it now.

Update: "Nuanced."