
Fitzgerald has a reputation for not fussing overmuch about jury selection, other than to be sure he has people who can make a fair and independent judgment.
The Libby strategy may be interesting. I've heard a couple of things from looseheadprop. First, whereas most defendants don't want a juror who has a strong and abiding faith in authority figures, since that would favor the prosecution, in this case, the prosecution is in some sense the underdog, not the authority.
Libby would love to get someone from the 12% of the country's true believers who think the surge is a good idea, deferring to the administration as the authority. Libby may also want one or two hard core true believers who would hold out to provide jury nullification in the event of a consensus to convict.
Team Irving filed a motion this morning to try to ask jurors about their exposure to particular news accounts about this case, or Fitzgerald's press conference. Fitz argues this is a way for the defense to purposely expose potential jurors with information about this case of their choosing. This is being wrangled in court out of the presence of the jurors as I type this. UPDATE: I haven't seen this get sorted out yet, but Walton seems inclined to find a way to allow Team Irving to find a way to ask its questions.
Class and race are not supposed to enter into jury selection, but they always do somehow, and we'll see what peremptory challenges surface from either side and how well Walton guards the border on these issues.
Questioning of specific jurors is now beginning. Team Irving is asking further questions about their views on the war or the decision to go to war, if they have any problem with it or strong opinions, or just general attitudes about the Bush administration or VP Cheney. Fitzgerald says this has already been covered in the opening voir dire review, and is repetitive in individual questioning, and actually beyond the scope of direct questions about the ability to be fair. Defense is arguing people sometimes miss their checked boxes, and that this is no ordinary case and we need to probe for anti-administration biases.
Walton's audio is really bad right now, but he's saying he will allow some latitude. The Libby people are also asking memory questions, repeating some of what was in the initial phase of voir dire, basically, do you think people can forget stuff?
Questioning of individual jurors is proceeding, very slowly, because there are a lot of questions and probing, mostly by the defense. At this rate, jury selection will take many, many days.




223 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Fitz for real
Fitz me too!!
Given the expected traffic here during the Libby trial, a few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers might be in order. FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
To make newcomers feel a bit more at ease, here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
We’ve covered maybe 4 jurors in the last hour, still on the fourth.
The third was very animated, very funny, really. She kept complimenting Fitz and Jeffress on their questions. Like almost patting them on the head, but no condescending. If she makes it to the jury she’ll be a post trial press conference favorite.
Hey Pach! Did you have lunch yet? Are there platters of cocktail weenies everywhere?
One juror said she had three children. Fitz said, “I assume these are young children?”
She was very quick, saying with a southern inflection, “Oh, aren’t you sweet!”
The whole press room busted up laughing.
Pachacutec @ 4
The pace of questioning will no doubt pick up, as the lawyers become more comfortable with the questions that work best for them. The phrasing will improve, and extraneous or redundant questions will be dropped.
And it will still take a long time.
Pace yourself, Pach – and great job with the earlier liveblogging!
ccmask @ 5
No food, no weenies. Water. I could leave to eat, but for all the money I’m making, I should earn it, eh?
;)
Is Howard Fineman lurking?
Wells and Jeffress are really going after perceptions of the war. There’s an African American woman who knows people in Iraq who feels people should be brought home. She’s talking about Bush knowing they have families who need them.
She says Bush should “relax for a while.”
I don’t think Team Irving wants this one. They want to lay foundation that she has bias, but they will have to worry about their strikes showing any potential racial bias. This is DC.
mandrake @ 9
Not in here, this media room.
How about ex-WAPO, water boy…
Is he at the fountain?
Jack
No Vandehei here.
Does Libby look happy to be out of the house?
He’s off camera to the side. I can’t really see Libby.
There’s a very delicate dance going on right now with one potential juror, under questioning by Wells, to see if she believes a person can be wrongly indicted, that they could be innocent.
Peterr @
3
Nice work, Peterr. Preview rules! (I’d no sooner post a comment without previewing it than get in a car without putting on the seatbelt).
Another way to “treat” a ziggurat is to quote it, but then judiciously remove all but one pair of blockquotes.
Pachacutec @ 10
Curious, how big is the jury pool right now?
And have all been vetted as to whether or not they’ve heard about the Libby business or is that part of what they are doing now?
Thanks for this Pach. I’m on my lunch hour this Fitzmas Day.
From the master zig trimmer himself.
lol
This potential juror is perplexing Wells a bit. She’s not much of an abstract thinker, but she seems to have a prejudice against the accused. Does not get burden of proof. Wells just finally got her to say it. He had to do some head scratching before he got it out of her.
ccmask @ 19
yes, thanks Pach -our eyes and ears
ccmask @
19
Thanks Pach, I’m
onextending my lunch hour this Fitzmas Day.slainte,
cl
While we are waiting: from the ABA, Wm Smith
“St. Louis lawyer James W. Jeans has tried more than 250 cases and lectured widely on trial tactics. His approach to jury selection, though, was most influenced by his first boyhood job selling Liberty magazine door to door. Young Jeans knew his prospects soon after someone answered his knock. A slammed door meant no sale, while a smiling face showed a willingness to hear his pitch.
Lawyers must be vigilant for similar signs of rejection and receptivity. “You want as few slammers and as many smilers as possible on your jury,” says Jeans, a founder of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.
The term voir dire means “to see, to speak.” For American lawyers, though, the French term for jury selection could also be translated as “make or break.”
The few hours after the first potential juror is sworn in for questioning may determine how the trial ends, days or weeks later. Veteran Chicago trial lawyer Manny Sanchez puts it this way: “I don’t believe a case can be won during voir dire. But it can be lost.”
This potential juror is perplexing Wells a bit. She’s not much of an abstract thinker, but she seems to have a prejudice against the accused.
Sounds like a lefty blogger…
serious questions (not to interrupt the flow of live blogging, perhaps for later discussion):
1. could anyone who has judiciously followed the initial betrayal, the investigation, and the build-up to the trial here at FDL be an impartial juror? I could not.
2. would anyone in item (1) have a snowball’s chance in hell of being seated on this jury? didn’t think so.
O/T …
peterr,
Have you read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion?
BC
Walton had further questions of this potential juror, sorting through some abstraction, and now she gave answers suggesting she could be fair. Wells is back at it. He doesn’t want her, in my opinion, but Walton is trying to keep the defense from spinning an unsophisticated person’s head around too much to allow for a pretext of rejection. That’s my take on this.
In this case, this single, not higly educated, African American woman is not the prototype of the Team Irving juror. But she’s given contradictory answers under different questions.
Now we are in recess until 1:55 EST. We have only four potential jurors reviewed. We need 36 approved, including alternates, from what I understand.
punaise @ 26
Pun,
I don’t think anyone who has followed the facts of this case in any medium could be an impartial juror.
O’ course, I could be biased.
BC
Pach, you so rock! This is terrific. Having been called for a high-profile DeeCee jury (Barry’s crack trial) long ago, I agree this selection may take longer than Judge Walton predicts.
Good to know that jurors are using their answers to get some thoughts out about the administration and the war in Iraq — if you’ve only got three minutes of fame, and you know you are going to be scratched from the jury, might as well speechify, I say!
Please tell David Schuster when you see him again he has a Number One Fan on the left coast! Gotta run, now, I’ll ketchup with y’all later….
punaise @ 26
I do not lie well enough. Coupled with the uncrontrollable urge to jump and point at Scooter while screaming TRAITOR might have a negative impact
Too bad there can’t be two simultaneous posts. One for ‘trial issues’ and the other not. ;)
Bargain Countertenor @ 27
I highly recommend it, along with “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”, but Sam Harris.
I think “The God Delusion” is important reading for any person of the cloth. It is a thoughtful appraisal of both the veracity of religious beliefs and the impact of such beliefs on society.
BTW punaise,
Tell your boss thanks for letting you come out and play today.
*g*
Pach at 28 — That’s a very typical dance between the lawyers and the judge on voir dire. No one wants to have to waste one of their own strikes if they can get the judge to use one of his unlimted ones for apparent cause. Judges are always skeptical and reluctant of the push from the lawyers and the lawyers are, understandably, constrained from pushing too hard because you then risk alienating a juror that, ultimately, might end up on the jury if you need to use one of your limited strikes on someone far more egregious. It’s a very intricate tap dance through voir dire, and much of it is based on first impressions and suppositions that have to be made on the spot.
In most cases, legal teams have had background information on the potential jurors (which is filed with the court, btw, by the jurors as a “juror questionnaire” in a lot of jurisdictions) gone over with a fine tooth comb prior to the start of any of this. So the lawyers are generally familiar in a surface way of the individual jurors on the list before they ever see them in person (including profession, background, prior criminal history if they own up to it on paper, etc.). The questioning here will proceed with that background always in mind.
Have any questions to the jury pool been “Have you ever blogged?”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 35
Redd,
Do you think that Team Libby has mooted this before one (or more) private juries, and developed a jury selection model?
BC
The words “blog” and blogger” have not surfaced at all.
My money is ona pre-emptive pardoning.
My money is on a pre-emptive pardoning
Oklahoma kiddo @ 32
No reason not to. Keep 2 tabs open at the same time and go back and forth. We do it all the time when we have “special” posts, Book Salon, Blue America, etc.
*xyz @ 33
I have both God Delusion and Letter on my pile of books to read. If I could tear myself away from FDL long enough, I might get to them. Don’t know when that will be.
*xyz @ 33
I think “The God Delusion” is important reading for any person of the cloth. It is a thoughtful appraisal of both the veracity of religious beliefs and the impact of such beliefs on society.
I’m reading it now, but I’m finding Dawkin’s ad hominem attacks a bit much. Frankly, I expected more of him than I have seen thus far.
BC
While the trial blather continues, the rolling Cheney coup is underway. From Josh Marshall:
“You’ve probably already seen some of the news about the Bush White House engaging in a seemingly unprecedented spree of firings of US Attorneys across the coutry. Conveniently, they’re being replaced without senate approval under a provision of the Patriot Act. We’re digging into now and we’re finding a bunch. “
Bustednuckles @ 34
3sivund has me on a short leash. :~)
RevDeb @ 42,
Thanks, I didn’t know you were in the house.
BC
RevDeb @ 41
My name is Bustednuckles and I am a FDL addict.
I am guilty of having no less than 5 tabs open at one time bouncing back and forth.I resolve that I will not let it stop me from Fitzing on a regular basis.
punaise @ 44
that’s the art of the fugue ……..
Bargain Countertenor @ 43
I’m reading it now, but I’m finding Dawkin’s ad hominem attacks a bit much. Frankly, I expected more of him than I have seen thus far.
BC
We can disagree about matters of style (I quite enjoy Dawkins’ wit), but in the end, it is his core observations about religion as delusion that really matter.
Bargain Countertenor @ 27
BC & *xyz,
No, but it’s on my list. From excerpts I’ve seen, though, he seems long on his use of generalizations and stereotypes.
Busted,
My screen has 4 windows open each with 5 or 6 tabs and an RSS feed. Talk about addiction! It really has become one.
Happy Anniversary fellas….
*xyz @ 48
We can disagree about matters of style (I quite enjoy Dawkins’ wit), but in the end, it is his core observations about religion as delusion that really matter.
I guess I just don’t see things like citing doubts about the research of someone’s Th.D. as particularly witty. It certainly doesn’t raise the level of discourse. That’s especially true when you don’t discuss the substantive content of the research.
BC
Judge Walton has Monday as opening day of trial. Any speculation to who will be the 1st witness called to the stand?
Reminder that at 2 pm EST Jerelyn from TalkLeft will be doing a live chat on the WaPo focused on this case.
So….where do the attorneys and the defendant go for lunch? Does someone bring it to them in the courthouse, or do they go to the Firehook coffeehouse at 441 4th St. for a $23 banana cream tart? Or Rasika at 633 D St.?
I can’t see this trial opening Monday, not at the rate we’re going with jury selection.
Walton is cutting us off at 3PM EST today because he has an MLK speaking engagement.
Whuh?
He says it’s been on the calendar a long time.
OK.
I just came from picking up a sandwish at the cafeteria. Wells got the soup.
Pach,
We all send our love and respect to you. Great job.
and THANKS!
During voir dire a very good tactic is to ask people what they do as opposed to what they think or feel. For instance a good series of questions might be: do you use your checkbook registry to note each check; do you keep a running balance; and, do you reconcile your registry with the bank statement at the end of the month. Answers to questions like this are often more informative than questions about how they think or feel about this or that.
Pachacutec @ 56
Why didn’t he take care of that yesterday when he had the day off?
old gold @ 58
Questions about what people do for a living are standard so far. One guy was a tech guy in a bank, which got to questioning about wire transfers and CIA anti-terros lists, which gave an opening for WoT type questions.
Bread and water for Libby. Oh wait, I’m not supposed to be biased. Give the man some oleo with that bread.
It’s hard to be funny when it’s ten degrees outside.
and
Thank you, Pachacutec.
In the long run, serious as it is, the Libby case will prove to be one of the lesser crimes committed by his Mephistophelean boss. Someday, we’ll lift the rock that’s covering Cheney’s secret energy task force and find something like this crawling around:
That was one startling headline in the Washington Post this morning — Saudi says no need to panic over oil price drop.What peak oil?Was Greg Palast right that we really invaded Iraq, not to sell its oil, but to keep it in the ground? And what now? With Iraq in total chaos and much of its oil off the market, there still seems to be way too much oil slopping around in world oil markets. The trouble with OPEC is, everyone cheats. To get supply and demand back in a nice proper balance that keeps oil prices high, it would be nice if you could find another country whose entire oil supply you could just remove from the market. Hey, what about finding a pretext to attack Iran?
old gold @ 58
So is being super anal about checkbook balancing make you more desired by the prosecution, or the defense?
I know Fitz was featured as one of People’s sexiest people, but this lust label is just ridiculous….
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f…..ndex2.html
Even the press here in the media room had a palpalble sense of tension or excitement about this case kicking off today. I felt wired with some butterflies last night.
Now imagine what it must be like for Libby.
Sure, you can immerse yourself in the ebb and flow of what’s going on, and if you’re an attorney, you can be lulled by the process, because it feels like familiar territory to you, except you’re not an observer this time, or a hired competitor. You’re the one in the docket.
Fitz is exactly as you see him on television, when he speaks, which is pretty much never. he had one good laugh line before about how he’s not exactly known to be a frequent talker, when Team Irving was arguing in favor of its motion to query potential jurors about their exposure to specific news events, such as statements by Fitz, particularly the indictment press conference.
Fitz argued it’s a slippery slope to get to individual stories checked with jurors, on the weekend after the Veep called Libby an unwaveringly honest person on national television.
Team Irving made a point to ask in particular about jurors’ potential thoughts or feelings about Tim Russert, by name. They must be worried about that testimony.
I’ve been reading, but haven’t contributed anything yet.
No way in the world could I get selected for this jury — I have way too many preconceived opinions and too much knowledge of the background of the case. And, to top it off, I’ve met Joe Wilson in person and have the photo of the two of us to prove it.
Thanks so much for doing this, Pach.
I just wish I wasn’t going to be out of town for work at the start of the trial itself next week — unless it doesn’t start until after Wednesday. Oh, darn, I’ll have to miss the SOTU speech as well on Tuesday night (sarcasm). I would have liked to hear Webb’s response, though.
OT: this is good:
Webb to deliver Democratic response to SOTU address
Sparkles the Iguana @ 64
This series of questions is used in civil matters and jurors that answer in the affirmative are prized by defense counsel.
My background in criminal litigation is very limited, but, if I were selecting this jury, as a prosecutor I would be favorably inclined towards jurors answering these questions affirmatively. They are careful and place a premium on accuracy.
this is great! now I’m guaranteed to not accomplish anything today. Thanks, Pach –
punaise @ 69
It is so good, my mouth is already watering.
I just read Amy Goldstein’s WaPo piece and chatted with her about it. She’s sitting right in front of me.
I told her the last graf sounds like a prayer. She laughed. She wrote it, actually, before we slogged through 4 jurors in 90 minutes.
BTW, gang, David Schuster seems like a real nice guy. David Corn, sitting next to me, is colorful and a live wire of energy, and opinion.
Is this trial going to be on a 4-day/week schedule with Fridays off?
Pachacutec @ 66
I wish he would STFU up about Buffalo. Ditto – Big Russ. I wonder WTF he has against his seldom-mentioned mother. I think he’s a big f**cking windbag.
Does that get me on the jury? Cuz it’s all true.
edgery @ 74
Yes.
Thanks Pachacutec and Prof. Prop ! – it is snowing here so the damn toobz cut in and out and I have no idea if any of my commentz have made it to the actual thread
. . .now Massimo Calabrese – mangilo con un cucchiaio !, Pach, I’m sure your SO wont mind a little up close and personal in the name of citizen journamalism ;)
Bay State Librul @ 24. Nice post. thx.
edgery at 75 — Thus far, that is the scheduling plan. The judge left Fridays open on his schedule for other court business as well as a just-in-case for the trial if it starts running long. (That’s generally how things work with long trials in my experience, btw, because most court dockets are clogged enough as it is and you need a day to take guilty pleas, do sentencing and other scheduling matters, etc.)
mandrake @
72
amen. it makes me feel really good that i made a small contribution to his campaign. and for fuckwad it’ll be like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. couldn’t happen to a nicer arsehole ……
MSNBC breaking news – Jordan and Egypt support US surge.
CNN – Inarticulate fashion chat.
edited
We’re back in action in court.
If anyone wants confirmation of that from MSM, this was in wapo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00664.html
punaise @ 69
Team Irving moving to strike the last juror for cause. Fitz objecting, says she sees both sides of the issue. Here we go. First single African American female juror under review.
Pachacutec @ 66
Russert’s the guy who’s gonna sink the Scoots battleship.
As far as Walton’s letting off early today – hey – I give him major props for having set a trial date months ago – and pullling it off. It started right when he said it would.
Doesn’t happen very often – at least not in my world. I’m no Reggie fan, but, imo, he gets big points for that alone.
Interesting article in the Chicago Trib today, with Snowjob going out of the way to say that no consideration has been given to the prospect of a Libby Pardon
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…..no__1.html
Walton arguing that he does not really like to rely only on the written questionnaire, since not everyone comprehends the questions as written well. Walton believes the totality of her responses says she can be fair, and has denied the motion to strike for cause.
Was Rove listed as Official A?
I remember Shuster did a piece saying in
Fitz’s previous work, every Official A was
indicted…
I hope his indictment was sealed….. and Fitz’s
streak was not broken…
Jack
You can track Judge Walton’s schedule at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/. Caveat: It hasn’t always been accurate.
how many strikes does each side get in fed court?
Blub @
84
Webb’s star is rising …………….
With the CIA leak trial of one-time Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby beginning today, the PlameGate CIA Leak Resource Center has all the resources you need to track the investigation and court room battle.
For all the latest breaking news, key legal documents, detailed timelines and more, see:
- “The PlameGate CIA Leak Resource Center.”
how many preemptory strikes does each side get in fed ct?
Thanks for the link to Amy’s article. It’s an interesting piece. Isn’t it ironic that TeamLibby is concerned about inaccurate misleading information when the mess is based on that flurry of simultaneous phone calls to multiple recipients that appeared designed for confusion? I would think the defense would be more concerned about knowledge of accurate information.
Peremptory strikes, defense = 12, prosecution = 6.
Blub @ 87
shorter fuckwad: i don’t do consideration. it’s a done deal!
Tim Russert is a lawyer.
Matt Apuzzo, under an AP byline has this up via Raw Story.
Not exactly blogging, but close.
I’m just wondering why Snowjob would come out and say that on the day jury selection starts. Seems odd to me.
I’m also daydreaming about Joe L’s inevitable speech to rationalize a future pardon for Libby from his dear leader…
jeffreyw @ 98
Matt’s here in the room.
Libby would love to get someone from the 12% of the country’s true believers who think the surge is a good idea, deferring to the administration as the authority. Libby may also want one or two hard core true believers who would hold out to provide jury nullification in the event of a consensus to convict.
Those people don’t live in Wash., DC.
Pachacutec @ 74
Ask Corn if he’ll be able to open up comments agin on http://WWW.DAVIDCORN.COM Alterntive Reality is ok but no the same.
David Corn here:I’ve been thinking about opening up comments again on the site. But I did get a major hack-attack last time the comments were up and running. I still need to work with by Web guy to figure this and other issues out. There’s also a possibility of a major overhaul at the site in the next few weeks. Thanks for asking….
Really? How so? You make the statement, please support it with arguments/facts.
The prosecution always has home court advantage, that’s my experience in federal court (including major criminal trials of very wealthy, money no object, top law firm represented defendants). If your experience is different, or you think THIS case is different, then explain your reasoning/evidence for the statement. Otherwise, it’s just hanging there.
Underdog only in the sense that the office and authority of the top of the executive branch is connected to the defense. This is considered from the framework of potential jurors’ perceptions.
Pachacutec @ 101
Great… if you get a chance can you ask Matt who his source was for his AP story for his
statement:
“Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent three years investigating that allegation but filed no charges based on the leak itself. He says his work is done except for trying Libby, who resigned after being indicted in October 2005.”
As far as I can verify, Fitzy never said that.
Jack
Can you check it out.
I was talking to an evangelical (but non-wingnutty) friend of mine, who follows Christian media…. apparently the Christian right/Southern Baptist blogs and outlets are covering the trial pretty closely. Anybody know why they would care? As far as I know, the theocons never really cared for the neocons.
Alice @ 102
“Legal experts have estimated that, if convicted on all charges, Libby could face up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.”
That would be nice.
Pachacutec @ 104
Many thanks from all the regulars including O’Reilly, Capt, Kathleen, Den, Saladin, RS, etc.
Pach – I think you give too much credence to that particular trope, but that’s me.
Who is sitting at the defense table?
Have you been able to identify any jury consultants at the table, or persons whom the defense counsel huddles with during breaks? If you have, do you see these people taking notes during questioning, and what prompts them to scribble…the questions and the answers?
Great job!
Janice @ 111
The camera view is too obstructed.
Peterr @ 3
I’ll just add one thought for newcomers and recent-comers to Peterr’s excellent introduction. Copyrights also matter. In addition to the concerns Peterr mentions, copying an entire article, or most of it, without permission is considered a violation of the copyright. Unless it’s a really short article, try to limit yourself to copying less than one quarter (25 percent) of the article in question. Small quotations, properly attributed, are considered “fair use” and are OK.
In view of certain recent events, I thought a mention of this fact was in order.
hey David,
If you see this, I just wanted you to know that I’ve enjoyed your work regardless of agreement which was most of the time anyway. You seemed to be a much stronger voice for us in the MSM world earlier on in these overall struggles and your presence is missed.
The current witness under review reads blogs, “Some of them are pretty good. I stay away from the crazies.” The media room erupted in laughter. I took a seated bow.
Pachacutec @ 112
I think that might be irony dripping on the lens, too.
Webb will deliver the STFU address aimed at Bush.
OT to the trial:
“The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, according to the source.”
http://www.rawstory.com/showar…..604565.htm
-GSD
That’s the best Flaccid Fred Kagan has to offer?
This juror, questioned by Wells:
Misled public on reasons for going to war? I don’t think. . . they intentionally tried to mislead anyone. I think some poor intelligence was used and what was used was most convenient for their cause and used to persuade the American public. WMD was the first reason, people bought into it, it’s a scary thought. They changed to freedom and democracy later.
Says he doesn’t have the highest opinion of VP Cheney.
The pro/anti war questions may end up backfiring for Libby. public opinion has changed quite a bit over the last year. Where a year ago, “cut and run” was virtually screamed by every non-progressive person in America, today, there are a LOT more people sympathetic to Murtha’s plan. Bush doesn’t have the credibility that he once had. People sense that they were lied to and they are not happy about it (or else the GOP would still own Congress). So, a juror could have been gung-ho on the war last year but may be totally disgusted by it now AND may be even more disgusted by what they hear during this trial. Libby will have to do a lot of questioning to find that 12%.
This potential juror has the most information about the trial and the case, its history, going in, among those we’ve seen so far. The questioning is to determine if he can be fair and impartial since he has some opinions about the backstory.
Wells: what blogs?: Andrew Sullivan. Time. Wonkette. Powerline, occasionally. HuffPo occasionally.
Here’s hoping he runs out of challenges first.
In regards to Libby’s tie, I think it’s supposed to be ethnic to appeal to the potential jurors. As a woman of color, it doesn’t work for me.
I ordered Marcy’s book last night & mailed my contribution this morning. Already I can tell it was well worth it!
The live trial blogging is really good; I hope the FDL servers are up to the task..I think Pach. Jane. CHS, Marcy, etc. being with the MSM day after day will have a huge impact on FDL and progressive blogging.
Pachacutec @ 119
Exactly. A juror like this is thinking waaaay too much. It won’t take long to convince him/her that Libby and Cheney deliberately fixed intelligence and scuttled the career’s of their opponents.
Wells is really fishing with this one for a reason to strike this young guy for cause. He hasn’t really gotten it, from what I can see.
Isn’t Andrew Sullivan a good example of the evolution of public opinion on the war?
Pachacutec @ 121
Those two things are contradictory. How can this juror know a lot about this case by reading the blogs he cited? Impossible. If he really knows a lot about the case, he didn’t get that info from those blogs. I’ll bet he’s leaving some blogs out. But if he is reading Powerline, he might be just the one Libby is looking for: stupid and knows nothing about the case.
rumi @ 127
Absolutely. The last time I saw him on Bill Maher’s show (before the current hiatus) he sounded like a different person than he had been the previous time. I was shocked!
Yay! Jeralyn took my question!
WaPo chat
Walton asking about potential juror’s ability to judge Cheney’s crediblity without preconception. Juror answers maybe no. Does not have opinion of Cheney’s credibility very high. Wlaton: could you deal with Cheney testimony, if contradicted, as equal without bias to another? Juror not really sure, would like to think he could.
Wells: what blogs?: Andrew Sullivan. Time. Wonkette. Powerline, occasionally. HuffPo occasionally.
Wells shouldn’t be giving this guy a hard time. Anyone who reads “Andrew Sullivan” and “Powerline, occasionally” is pretty far to the right — and that’s the kind of juror Wells wants.
The prosecution should make the case that it is unconscionable that a lawyer would represent Libby as he is accused of leaking vital information and exposing a CIA asset.
Off to Guantanimo Scooter.
-GSD
Mislead? No
Used convenient information? Yes, by all means.
This guy will get one of the defense’s 12 peremtory challenges unless he’s excused for cuase.
Wells is basically circling to find some reason to get a motion upheld to strike this guy for cause.
Wonkette ane Huffpo are resources where trial info can be found. Jane posts at Huffpo….
Time.com too…when they are not giving Bush and Rove a rusty trombone.
-GSD
Pachacutec @ 135
Cause he’s a logger?
Roosevelt was rated “great” or “near great” by 78% of those surveyed, while 74% said they feel the same way about Kennedy. Both Roosevelt and Kennedy experienced slightly higher greatness rankings in this year’s poll – 71% ranked Roosevelt as great or near great last year compared to 73% who said they felt the same about Kennedy. The Zogby survey of 843 likely voters took place January 5-9, 2007, and contains a margin of error of /- 3.4 percentage points.
George W. Bush, who continues to struggle with dwindling job-performance numbers, trails Nixon as the modern president with the highest negative ranking – 50% of those surveyed place the current president at the low end of the scale compared to 40% who felt the same last year. Even though Nixon has the greatest overall negative rating (57%), Bush beats him out on the failure scale – 30% say Bush is a failure as a president, compared to 23% who feel that way about Nixon. Just 21% rated Bush as a great or near great president this year – those numbers have fallen steadily since his all-time high greatness rating of 63% in 2002, following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(Zogby)
Wells: could you put VP Cheney on the same footing under oath as another witness, or would he have a strike or more against him in your mind.
He’d have a strike against him.
This guy has just been excused by Walton.
‘Cause he’s gone out seeking information instead of passively taking in whatever was given him. I’m not sure Libby’s lawyers want jurors who can think, even if some of their info sources lean right.
The next juror:
I am completely without objectivity. There is nothing you can say that would make me feel positively about President Bush.
She was immediately excused, mid-20’s African American female.
Nixon had his Saturday Night Massacre.
Apparently Bush is more along the lines of a serial killer.
7 or 8 US attorneys departed in the past few months pushed out by the Dictating Decider.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002347.php
-GSD
Pachacutec @ 131
What if they can’t impanel a jury because they cant find 12 people who think they would be able to judge Cheney’s testimony impartially? Bwaaaa
Pachacutec @ 140
Representing 70% of Americans with that statement.
Pachacutec @ 141
Bless her honest sould.
-GSD
p.lukasiak @ 131
Not sure why you think this. Sure, it’s the conventional wisdom, but I listen to Drudge (and think he’s pretty funny) and I love Pat Buchanan and I am definitely not on the right.
Pachacutec @ 141
Her answer sounds like what I’d want to say — I just don’t know if I’d have the guts.
The trial will end at 3PM EST today? Can yu give us a wrap up?
What time will live blogging start tomorrow?
Can you post NEW THREAD as a comment when you skip to new thread for live blogging the trail?
This has been great coverage. Thank you x 2.
Libby’s Voir Dire = Instant Zogby Survey
THANKS for the great liveblogging.
Keep up the good work!!
Next up, 50’s w/f, federal government agency attorney. . .
Pachacutec @ 141
High five!
thanks, pach. it must be really exciting to be there.
for me it’s time for bed. ‘bye y’all…….
Sparkles the Iguana @ 145
Same here, except for the Drudge. I’ve actually been concerned for Pat lately because he’s lacked the coherent argument he normally has. I never agree completely but I see merit in his points.
I think the Sullivan followers are more dangerous to the Libby/(Cheney)/(Bush) interest of prewar justification. They have grown from gung-ho to get ‘em home.
Thanks so much for the live blogging.
Here in the Portland area it is still snowing. It effecively shuts everything down. Which means, I GET A SNOW DAY!!
WOOT!
Shutting the place down and see what happens tomorrow.
MERRY FITZMAS.
Delurking to say thanks to FDL for this amazing day….and especially to Pach for a spectacular job of live-blogging. You guys are the best!
OT – The Bush Administration purge of US Attorneys is getting frightening.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..011960.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..011958.php
This one seems. . . how shall I say this? Likely to empathize with the notion that sometimes people can disagree about past events when the issue is memory, not credibility. But so far, she’s answering right down the middle.
Great job Pach!
Thanks.
That one is done now. Adjourned for the day so Walton can do his speaking engagement.
p.lukasiak @ 132
What are the chances this dude is playing Wells and he’s really Norske or egregious or someone else here we all know and love? What are the chances someone can successfully game the system?
Pachacutec @ 141
My new hero!
I’m only at comment 23 but I had to come down here to say thanks and how “bitchin’ this is at FDL !!
Great job Pach…
What’s your billable rate?
Same question asked at the WaPo chat:
It is not clear whether Mr Cheney will appear in court in person or give evidence by video-conference. Either way, however, his cross-examination by the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the most tenacious lawyers in the US, could be a courtroom clash for the age.
In the end, however, the outcome may not greatly matter. If Mr Libby is convicted, it is widely expected he will be pardoned by President Bush.
2007 Independent News and Media Limited
I’m thinking Pat would move to strike this one for cause.
There are only about half of us left in the media room. That means there are 9 of us. I’d guess we’ve had 20-25 at peak, but I’ve been so absorbed at my keyboard and watching the video, I’m not exactly sure.
and tell us about Fitz’s tie before YOU leave! And see if he’ll pose with your boa outside Prettyman. Thanks for an amazing day, Pachacutec!!!!!
rumi @
154
somebody here (David E.?) linked to this yesterday:
Oklahoma kiddo @ 166
“If Mr Libby is convicted, it is widely expected he will be pardoned by President Bush.”
Where do people get this information?
This is great. Finally. I’ve been waiting so long.
Thanks Pach and FDL.
I haven’t posted for months, but I have not missed a post on FDL.
Is Matt Apuzzo still there? Ask if he reads Firedoglake.
Pach and FDL..
THANK YOU!! :)
Colleen military mom @ 172
Welcome back from lurking!
Thanks again Pach for the nonstop effort, excellent observation and reporting.
Pachacutec @ 160
Wonderful, wonderful, Pach! Please go have a well-deserved libation and send me the bill. This has been very exciting. Can’t wait for tomorrow.
Thanks ya’ll!
I’m decompressing a bit now, but sometime later I’ll have some kind of day’s recap, meta post up. I’m not sure when.
punaise @ 169
This is an entirely different issue for comparison. I can put many, many people in this category. The issue I referred to is the opinion of Iraq pre-war justification, misleading into war and the continued support v regret for that support.
Pachacutec @ 179
our voir dire rokstar
Great stuff, Pach–where else could we have found that Wells had the soup. :) But, more importantly, did he get any on his tie? :)
Thanks for this. I doubt there’s going to be much mainstream reporting on voir dire, as that just might confirm recent polls on Bush’s popularity….
Hoo-boy, I’m drained.
Neil @ 171
Published on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 by The Independent (UK)
Washington Trial Forces Cheney into the Spotlight
by Rupert Cornwell
http://www.commondreams.org/he…..116-02.htm
Hehe. Well, Eric Foner, who carries Schlesinger’s mantle now as historian of presidents, already pronounced shrub the most likely contender for worst-president-ever, on the basis that shrub has nearly ALL of the worst attributes of each of the presidents considered “bad” in US history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01509.html
rwcole @
138
And to the best of my knowledge Prof Foner’s not even considered to be a lefty. At this point, unless Condi’s pulls a few thousand cats out of his hat, shrub’s best shot at a less-than-disasterous legacy would be to give a stunningly good resignation speech.
thanks again, Pach.
In the end, however, the outcome may not greatly matter. If Mr Libby is convicted, it is widely expected he will be pardoned by President Bush.
I *wish* that he would do so – right freakin’ now. With a Democratic Congress, subpoena powers, and the Wilson/Plame civil case looming – yes, please GWB, by all means, please pardon him now. I mean, how would we know GWB was payin’ attention if he didn’t do something monumentally stupid?
Won’t happen though. Long trial, and a long appellate process, means that GWB won’t haven’t to pardon him until the very last act of his very last day in the presidency.
Which is not to say, by any means, that this trial isn’t going to be a whole bunch of fun.
Pachacutec @ 179
Ah, they DO have a hyperbaric chamber then.
Nice work Pach.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 184
thanks. what i meant was, where did the author Rupert Cornwell get the information that allows him to claim the following “In the end, however, the outcome may not greatly matter. If Mr Libby is convicted, it is widely expected he will be pardoned by President Bush.”
Has anyone considered the possibility that ClusterFreak is happy to have eyes turned away from his shenanigans?
It may explain why there has been no talk of a pardon.
I have long expected a pre-emptive pardon- but it may be that the Clusterfuckers have looked at the evidedence that will be brought up in this trial and concluded that none of it will rub much shit on GW.
I think it makes sense to expect a pardon. Bush won’t be running for office and it is man effective way to head off investigations. I think Libby hasn’t been, yet, because the chance to set precedent in law is presented. Once the BushCo preferred version of facts is on record, then pardons could be issued to undo some personnel damage.
Or he’s concluded that the evidence WILL damn him but knows that Libby can be trusted jump under the bus for Cheney and the grand PNAC cause, for whatever reason (death threats, a king’s ransom in a numbered account for the wife an’ kids, blackmail bad enough to persuade somebody to let himself be buried alive, just batsh*t craziness or all of the foregoing).
rwcole @
191
“Pach, you so rock! This is terrific.”
AMEN! from a newcomer. I’m so glad you guys are there! :D
“Good to know that jurors are using their answers to get some thoughts out about the administration and the war in Iraq — if you’ve only got three minutes of fame, and you know you are going to be scratched from the jury, might as well speechify, I say!”
Yes, that makes sense — I like that they’re doing that!
Pach, that was farkin’ fantabulous! You made my day.
Salutations all around for everyone at the Lake! This was the bestest idea ever. :)
rwcole @
191
Might depend upon Toad-In-The-Hole’s testimony. If, as someone suggested yesterday, Fitzgerald is able to push a few of Cheney’s buttons during cross-examination, and Shooter loses his cool, then it could look bad for the White House. M’self, I don’t think that will happen, and I doubt TITH will give the prosecution any openings. But, if it goes badly, they could conceivably do a preemptive strike. (!)
Just de-lurking to say how grateful I am to Pach and FSL. I feel like I was there with you. This site is one of my daily joys.
Young gooper uses free enterprise system to solve problem.
A 31-year-old Central Florida man accused of hanging a woman from a tree and videotaping her torture and rape was attempting to create a bondage-porn video for cash after recently declaring bankruptcy, police told Local 6 News.
Deputies said Christopher Joseph Wood brought a woman to a river bank in a wooded area west of Interstate 95 in Brevard County and attacked her.
“Once they were out in the wooded area he proceeded to force sex on her and then he used a knife to kind of keep her under his control,” Brevard County sheriff’s Officer Marlin Buggs said.
Late to the thread so this is just a drive-by but go firepups! Now, I’ll go back up top and read the thread.
It occurs that if Mr. Libby is facing possibly 30 years in prison and a 1.5 million dollar fine upon conviction then the chances are he might be lying to protect his boss(s) Cheney, Rove and ultimately Bush and his motivation for lying is perhaps a guarantee of a pardon from Bush. Hence Cheney’s recent public, possibly ‘coded’ message to Libby testifying to Mr. Libby’s honesty. I cannot but think that Mr. Fitzgerald is holding a trump card and is after bigger fish to fry than Libby. Certainly, I dearly hope so. Primarily, my concern is with Bush and Cheney. And what did they know.
new thread
jayt @ 187
I am inclined to go along with what you are saying.
Just de-lurking to say how grateful I am to Pach and FDL. I feel like I was there with you. This site is one of my daily joys.
And meanwhile, back in the nuthouse…
Libby’s intellectual buddies at the PNAC, an organization of which he is a founding member, are onto bigger and better things.. http://www.newamericancentury……061211.htm …a project to build a grand NATO alliance in Asia to militarily contain China the same way NATO was used in Europe to contain Soviet Russia, notwithstanding the fact that half of the countries that would make up such an alliance fear us as much as they fear China, thanks in large measure to the PNACers, and that those countries and China are economically interdependent. There must be something in the koolaid that changes perceptions…
Blub @ 108
I find this most interesting.
Two possible explanations, among others:
(1) They are concerned that those bad people are attacking the Nation’s President And Vice President.
(2) They are beginning to realize we are being led by genuinely bad people.
We church people are interested in the whole good/evil question. I just can’t figure out where the theocons are on this one. Perhaps it’s evolving :)
“Pach at 28 — That’s a very typical dance between the lawyers and the judge on voir dire. No one wants to have to waste one of their own strikes if they can get the judge to use one of his unlimted ones for apparent cause. Judges are always skeptical and reluctant of the push from the lawyers and the lawyers are, understandably, constrained from pushing too hard because you then risk alienating a juror that, ultimately, might end up on the jury if you need to use one of your limited strikes on someone far more egregious. It’s a very intricate tap dance through voir dire, and much of it is based on first impressions and suppositions that have to be made on the spot.”
Christie, your explanations an insights will be SO valuable to me as I follow this trial.
Thank you so much!
I think he said that most of the theocon ayatollah-supreme-leader-types (Bauer & Dobson namely) have asked their followers to assume Libby is innocent until proven guilty (as opposed to how the same two convicted and condemned Clinton on innuendo alone). I can only hope that the interest is an indication that the Christian street is prepared to hold their leaders accountable for their extraordinary forbearance for the neocons’ fundamentally un-Christian behavior. Perhaps I’m being too charitable here…
egregious @
205
T – at 161 What are the chances this dude is playing Wells and he’s really Norske or egregious or someone else here we all know and love? What are the chances someone can successfully game the system?
Not me. I live outside the city.
Plus I’m a girl.
But interesting idea.
Oh and thanks for the love! :)
Neil @ 171
From their tiny little brains.
paul at 132 — LOL — I read Powerline occasionally and Andrew Sullivan. And I am far from what they would consider a model juror for Team Libby. *g*
“In regards to Libby’s tie, I think it’s supposed to be ethnic to appeal to the potential jurors. As a woman of color, it doesn’t work for me.”
You got to be joking here? LOL! That is simply old school. Ethnic tie or not, Libby will have a hard time trying to convince all 12 jurors that he is innocent beyond the reasonable doubt. I am waiting for Libby to buy a Afro wig next. You are right. It doesn’t work. And he needs to quit while he is ahead.
egregious @
205
They are also financial and power supporters of the Feith-based occupation ideals. Some of the connections have been less than proud.
by the way, I hear your name mentioned all over the place these days.
:-)
Neil @
143
What if they can’t impanel a jury because they cant find 12 people who think they would be able to judge Cheney’s testimony impartially? Bwaaaa
Based on current polls, it would require at least 100 prospective jurors to find 12 who believe Cheney.
Feith based! I love it!
I, too, wanted to say thanks to everyone for all the great info posted here today. I feel like I’m getting a real legal education through this process, not to mention all the great insights and observations. Hats off to the FDL team!
Eureka Springs @ 82 – Jordan and Egypt support US surge.
That warms the cockles of my heart. Bush’s plan is loved by foreign governments who haven’t contributed diddly squat to his war. So he’ll tout their love, while ignoring what America, Iraq, Dems, Republicans and the troops want.
What country does Bush think he’s presding over?
I have a serious question here. Given the Bush regime’s blatant abuse of Executive power; what’s the point of holding this trial? He’s just going to pardon Libby and any others that might have broken federal law. The sad thing is, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it. It’s not like Bush is running for re-election so what does he care?
Future Presidential material there. Are you permitted to high five her?
Pachacutec:
“What if they can’t impanel a jury because they cant find 12 people who think they would be able to judge Cheney’s testimony impartially? Bwaaaa”
Oh, GOD, that could happen, couldn’t it??!
If Mr Libby is convicted, it is widely expected he will be pardoned by President Bush.”
He got that information by asking the widelys.
To Team FDL: My thanks also. Very informative. Almost better than Boston Legal ;-)
Hoo-boy, I’m drained.
Go drink water and put your feet up, Pach!
Kevin Hayden @ 220
Those widelys get around.
Man, this is far more entertaining than 24. And we’re just getting started.
Thanks, Pach! Your reporting will be, of course, the first draft of the eventual screenplay, and we’ll just have to get Kiefer to play you.