Fitz!

We’re back up with potential jurors. 20’s white female up, now being queried by Judge Walton.

More draino please - the tubes are super stuck this morning. Or, maybe they are hung over after the binge following from yesterday’s excitement!

Thanks for sitting through all of this for us. I really appreciate it.

Richmond and all — Our tech geniuses are working on it. I think we’ve identified the problem and it looks like we’ll be fully running again momentarily. (Luv people who know what they are doing with a computer, don’t you?)

Thanks Christy (and FDL’s amazin techies)!

Richmond @ 3

More draino please - the tubes are super stuck this morning. Or, maybe they are hung over after the binge following from yesterday’s excitement!

I’m glad to hear it’s not just me. I wasn’t sure that it wasn’t my computer, but I’m thinking FDL might want to check their computers, because I can get to the site, but when I wanted to go to the comments, it didn’t work. I had to get out of my browser and back in before I could get to that page and it seemed pretty iffy at that.

The site is really slow, I would hate for it to crash and force us all to miss our fitz-fix. As much as I detest the thought, I pledge to only update comments once every 10 minutes. Hopefully this will ease the strain on the toobs.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

Richmond and all — Our tech geniuses are working on it. I think we’ve identified the problem and it looks like we’ll be fully running again momentarily. (Luv people who know what they are doing with a computer, don’t you?)

Well in that case, sorry I wrote #7. I was writing it before Christy’s #5 came up.

What I really wanted to express, though, is my sympathy for Jane. I’m so sorry that she’s going through this again, and at such an inopportune time. Jane, just keep the faith and get well soon.

Pachacutec- How is Mr. Fitz looking today?

Stop prosecuting the white black man known as Scooter! He is one of us, man!

Both fans and critics of Libby might be surprised by some anecdotes from Yale, where Libby graduated in 1972. Fellow students recall his helping silkscreen T-shirts proclaiming “solidarity” between Yalies and the Black Panthers and going with shoulder-length blond hair and in a leather jacket to help at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration.

BTW, what kind of tie is our brother wearing today?

On spying etc. Americablog has up that the DoD is gathering info on protestors even more than previously known. Couple that with C & L’s piece (via Salon) that Michael McConnell, the new Director of National Intelligence was head of a private intelligence contracting firm of the type that has some of the greatest problems with privacy concerns. Plus McConnell was a key figure in the infamous Total Information Awareness program aimed at spying on ordinary Americans.

Seems as if the administration’s outing of one of its own CIA agents (Plame) in the rush into the Iraq war, is now being addressed through other illegal spying related actions.

Black Panther Party at 11 — Man, that ought to have come with a spew alert. I just lost half my mouthful of coffee. hehehehe

As iBlack Panther Party @ 11

Stop prosecuting the white black man known as Scooter! He is one of us, man!

Both fans and critics of Libby might be surprised by some anecdotes from Yale, where Libby graduated in 1972. Fellow students recall his helping silkscreen T-shirts proclaiming “solidarity” between Yalies and the Black Panthers and going with shoulder-length blond hair and in a leather jacket to help at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration.

BTW, what kind of tie is our brother wearing today?

As in the NYT piece today from which this is quoted, the whole article is geared to make Scooter look like a nice, non-right wing guy at heart, here wrongly on trial.

Ok, I’m back. We have reviewed three jurors so far and we just had another struck who said, “I certainly can’t believe any statement by the Bush administration.” Walton: does that include Mr. Libby? “Yes.”

She was excused. The other two today are still live options, but may one has prosecutor friends, and may not survive peremptory challenge.

Matt Stoller reviews “Anatomy of Deceipt”

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007.....5#readmore

“The book is a meticulous description of the pre-war Iraq sales job, and how the administration used certain structural weaknesses within the DC governing and media class to undermine and betray America. Marcy paints a truly devastating portrait of a thoroughly corrupted New York Times (which has since scrubbed its archives to unsuccessfully remove damning evidence in its complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame and the march to war). She shows how the administration, and specifically Cheney’s cabal, used the press to launch a dishonest PR campaign selling the war, and how the press protected them, and still protects them. The book makes a larger point, too, about how we talk about politics in this country.”

Any indication of whether the closed hearing had to do with jury selection, or some other matter, like resolving possibly outstanding CIPA matters (which I doubt, if it only lasted a half hour)?

Pachacutec @ 15

…we just had another struck who said, “I certainly can’t believe any statement by the Bush administration.” Walton: does that include Mr. Libby? “Yes.”…

What are the odds they can find 37 people who beleive anything from this Administration?

From the NYTimes article:

He was “Cheney’s Cheney,” in Ms. Matalin’s words, “an absolutely salient translator” of the ideas of the man considered perhaps the most powerful vice president in history. Mr. Libby had a role in virtually every national security initiative of the administration’s first five years.

Does Mary not realize how damning these words are?

And, thanks, Pach. Hope you got adequate sleep.

Can we put Judy Miller back in jail?

so no wingnuts yet?

Obviously in the District, that would be unlikely, but just asking.

Pach is it true that Condi will be a witness for Scooter?

And, what about the FDL blog/report a couple of days ago that someone at the NYT recently had Libby’s name removed from the archived editorial involving Judith Miller? Was that true, and if so, what are your thoughts on how and why it occured?

Jeff @ 17

Any indication of whether the closed hearing had to do with jury selection, or some other matter, like resolving possibly outstanding CIPA matters (which I doubt, if it only lasted a half hour)?

Jeff I was thinking that it might have to do with jury selection. I read somewhere thus AM (maybe Boston Globe?) that PAtFitz made a bunch of objections to Team Libby’s questions yesterday saying they went beyond the scope of what Walton had approved.

It is entirely conceivable that Team Fitz did a little legal research last night and camme in this AM with a bunch of caselaw about they scope of appropriate voir dire questions. it’s what I would do in his shoes if I didn’t want Team Libby to wrest contril of the courtroom away from Walton in week one.

this next guy used to work under Woodward as a reporter years ago. Small town.

Yes I am a little worried that Wells et. al. are doing a good job of skewing the jury. They only have to get one closet wingnut in there to scuttle the case.

Pach,
If you notice a trend, I would be curious to know if Team Libby tones it down today. It would be an indication that my theory about this hearing this AM, may have some merit

May I just say with regard to the NYTimes article, that Barbara Comstock (fyi, click through on all the links in the post inside this one) is quite good with her sales pitches on the manipulative spin front. That she has been doing this for ages and ages. And that any journalists or others who are approached by her with “useful information” ought to be fully aware that they are being used like yesterday’s newspaper at the bottom of a very dirty birdcage from the get? I just needed to say that out loud.

annx @ 25

Yes I am a little worried that Wells et. al. are doing a good job of skewing the jury. They only have to get one closet wingnut in there to scuttle the case.

I am also worried that they, not Walton are setting the pace here. It is a slippery slope, but if Walton cannot contain them from the outset, he will lose control of his own courtroom. Once the jury realize that has happened, they begin to look to the alpha dogs in hte room for their info.

That’s what happened in the OJ trial

Good morning everyone,

Pachacutec, another vote from the peanut gallery for some color commentary on Patrick Fitzgerald this morning, if you have a moment. ;-)

-S

The thing is, there will be a number of people on this jury who have familiarity to varying degrees with the administration, the war justification, some of the coverage of this case. The key will be whether or not they can deal fairly, and only, with the evidence before them.

These juror processes are very interesting.

Pach at 24 — Well, that’s interesting, isn’t it? Small world. Wonder if he has any “bias” concerning Woodward? *g*

Fitz’s suit looks like a dark olive color. The earth toned hippie!

Will someone have an update on Jane? It is 7:30 on the West Coast

Christy Hardin Smith @ 31

Pach at 24 — Well, that’s interesting, isn’t it? Small world. Wonder if he has any “bias” concerning Woodward? *g*

Fitz is following up with precisely that line of questioning as I type this.

looseheadprop @
23

Jeff @ 17

Any indication of whether the closed hearing had to do with jury selection, or some other matter, like resolving possibly outstanding CIPA matters (which I doubt, if it only lasted a half hour)?

Jeff I was thinking that it might have to do with jury selection. I read somewhere thus AM (maybe Boston Globe?) that PAtFitz made a bunch of objections to Team Libby’s questions yesterday saying they went beyond the scope of what Walton had approved.

It is entirely conceivable that Team Fitz did a little legal research last night and camme in this AM with a bunch of caselaw about they scope of appropriate voir dire questions. it’s what I would do in his shoes if I didn’t want Team Libby to wrest contril of the courtroom away from Walton in week one.

Very interesting, and sounds plausible.

FITZ y’all

holy shit, just caught up with Jane thing

you’ve got these bastards on the run Jane

Not sure how many people know about these virtual candle pages, but I set up a page for Jane.

You can light just one candle for a person or whatever intention you wish–world peace, anyone? Or you can start a “group” of candles, which allows you to put all the candles that are lit for one person to be together in one place. I like that, because for those of us who belong to caring communities on the web, in times of difficulty, it’s nice to have a visual representation of all those people gathered in support.

Pachacutec @ 30

These juror processes are very interesting.

I think we are on to something here, sending a shrink to jury selection. Could start a trend.

Thus far I think two things. The defense is going to stretch this trial out for as long as is possible, and the fair trial issue will be front and center. I can hardly wait for the continuances, the appeals, and what not.

Christy @27

Blank Rome is just about THE most nakedly politcal firm I have ever encountered. They actually regard a lawyer’s politcal involvement as part of the job performance (or so I am told by a partner there)

They work both parties, and even minor parties and are quite brazen about it.

They raise a ton of money, for all kinds of cnadiates.

Pachacutec @ 32

Fitz’s suit looks like a dark olive color. The earth toned hippie!

Thank you. I can go back to my regularly scheduled drooling now.

-S
president for life of the Patrick Fitzgerald Estrogen Brigade

Christy Hardin Smith @
27

May I just say with regard to the NYTimes article, that Barbara Comstock (fyi, click through on all the links in the post inside this one) is quite good with her sales pitches on the manipulative spin front. That she has been doing this for ages and ages. And that any journalists or others who are approached by her with “useful information” ought to be fully aware that they are being used like yesterday’s newspaper at the bottom of a very dirty birdcage from the get? I just needed to say that out loud.

I think we can cnsider Christy the “anti-Barbara Comstock.” Or maybe the “anti-Victoria Toensig.” Well that’s a disservice, maybe we should just say they’re not fit to wipe her shoes and be done with it.

Mornin’ Jane,

Glad you can be with us today. I was thinking about you most of last night.

Techie question here. Is there any way I can remotely get my FDL to “refresh” without my clicking the button with a key stroke? What I mean is that I had to miss yesterday’s live blogging because of a writing deadline, and today am editing on hard copy so it will be easier, but to refresh comments here I have to regularly put down my pen, interrupting things a bit too much. Any help would be appreciated!

This guy is getting some of the deepest questioning from Fitz yet. Probing his perceptions of people he has been familiar with personaly, like Pincus and Woodward. Intersting stuff he’s saying now about the internal hierarchy at the WaPo. Heh. Caste system?

Jane at 42 — Thank you. I’ll take anti-Victoria Toensing for a thousand, Alex… *g*

BTW, oughtn’t Boris and Natasha be rearing their bought and paid for heads any time now to spin the Republican line on this trial for all and sundry on every single news show that Comstock can contact? In 5…4…3…2…1…

Libby trial story on MSNBC now…

Jane Hamsher @ 38

Pachacutec @ 30

These juror processes are very interesting.

I think we are on to something here, sending a shrink to jury selection. Could start a trend.

This quote from the Times Shane story a real piece of dog doo:
…Among Mr. Libby’s friends and former colleagues, the case brought by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, is considered not only unjust, but also a terrible irony.

“He’s going to be the poster boy for the criminalization of politics, and he’s not even political,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political adviser.

I mean who began the criminalization of politics in recent times? not the GOOPer Congress on Clinton. And do we accept the Mary quote about Scooter not being political as truth or was Mary just really setting out one of the legs of the stool that the defense rests on–Scooter wasn’t political. This war was about truth and national security.

I would like to think Shane put the quote in their knowing it was horse shit so folks could just devalue Matalin, but that is a vane hope.

It’s also possible for people who light a candle to include a message. If you click on my name, you can see what I wrote.

The message is optional, though. Just lighting the candle is a nice way of letting someone know you’re thinking about them, “holding them in the light”, or praying, if that’s what you do.

One of the legacies of my Slovak-American grandma is some of her grandkids are candle-lighting junkies. ;)

We should start a betting pool. Who will testify? Does Fitz have a “smoking gun?” Under cross, willl Cheney yell, “you can’t handle the truth.” Which reporter(s) will wet him/her self on the stand? Who will spill the beans? There should be some more…

As you may have already guessed, Valerie and I are keeping a very low profile these days. We don’t want to do anything to interfere with Mr. Libby’s time in the sun.
But be sure that I am lurking here watching all the great blogging and commentary, grateful that there are so many who understand what this is all about, and who care. Cheers to you all. Joe

As each juror is being questioned are the other potential jurors present?
Are those that have been passed on present?
In my jurisdiction that is the case and sometimes a juror will blurt something out that is prejudicial to one side or the other.

“scooter” makes lewis libby sound like a benign happy guy. a real “leave it to beaver” name. who knows maybe hitler had a cute nickname like “skippy hitler.”

O.T. Raw has up that Iran just downed a U.S. drone. Will this be the excuse used to invade Iran now?

Holoscan, or whatever FDL uses, ate my comment on this quote from the NYT Libby profile.
Basically, what a load of shit to make this the lead quote.

Among Mr. Libby’s friends and former colleagues, the case brought by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, is considered not only unjust, but also a terrible irony.

“He’s going to be the poster boy for the criminalization of politics, and he’s not even political,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political adviser.

Now, remind me, who started the criminalization of politics? Not the Gooper Congress in 1998?

Now Fitz is asking him about familiarity with Judy Miller’s refusal to give up a source. He does not remember who the source was.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

Richmond and all — Our tech geniuses are working on it. I think we’ve identified the problem and it looks like we’ll be fully running again momentarily. (Luv people who know what they are doing with a computer, don’t you?)

this is Redd’s nice way of saying that the techies have once more discovered Sen. Ted Stevens has been sneaking visits to fdl. Every time he opens this page, it slows way, way, way down……..

Pach,

Your firsthand reports are invaluable. You scooped MSNBC on yesterdays responses, and your quotes were on the mark. The intertubes are defining the curve, not ahead of it.

You are blazing a new trail here, and all of us are vicariously with you for the ride. This day, neigh this moment in history is to be remembered by future generations. With no cameras in the courtroom, the catchphrase “The Revolution will not be Televised” is ironic and foretelling. VIVA FDL!!! Viva La Revolution!!!

Aside, Jane, glad to see you in good spirits. As Atrios said, “Hope is Hope”.

Hi Joe! I hope this trial goes perfectly, and therefore at least half as well as the civil trial.

O.T. Raw has up that Iran just downed a U.S. drone. Will this be the rationale used by the Bush admin to invade?

Heh. Fitz just asked him about blogs. He said, “I’m allergic to blogs.”

Heh.

Lord, what a gift Pach is today!
This is an interesting problem, what will it say of the character, curiosity, analytical ability of a potential juror to be able to sort through this case if this person has not already taken the time to have a working knowledge of the circumstances?
I’m sure it’s an age old problem of jury selection but the curiosity about one’s own govt must be different than about a corp CEO. Well, hopefully there’s a difference…

Joe
Lets hope that you see your family presents neatly wrapped up under the Fitzmas Tree.

Ambassador Wilson,

The restraint shown by you and your wife though this long journey has been remarkable.

Many a crime victim would be sitting front and center in the courtroom.

You are SO correct to let Scooter and his actions be the focus here

Sorry for the duplicate comment. Slow tubes, nothing was going through so I thought it had been lost. Moderator - please remove on. And again, Sorry!

Thanks Pach for your blogging!

Oh and Richmond–

well, if we were trespassing (which I am sure we were) seems like they had every right to do so…

Richmond @ 55

O.T. Raw has up that Iran just downed a U.S. drone. Will this be the excuse used to invade Iran now?

If the drone was over Iranian airspace, the Iranians have every right to shoot it down if it doesn’t respond to requests to identify itself and land. Additionally, some drones are armed. If that is the case, the US has committed an act of war.

Joe at 52 — Thanks much. Was thinking about you guys yesterday and wondering if you had plenty of popcorn… *g*

Here is the Amazon page for Scooter Libby’s book entitled “Apprentice” for anyone into a crotch grabbing thruster of a book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi.....ref=nosim/

Fitz really drilling down on this guys ability to be fair. Used an analogy of referreeing his son’s basketball game: would you have to work hard to be fair, or to avoid trying to push to the other side by way of being as fair as you can be? Would the struggle to be fair based on your personal potential worries about bias prevent make it difficult for you?

It was nicely done, I thought. And the guy said, in fact, he has referreed his son’s basketball games.

Christy and Jane,

Who do you think the immunized witness is?

Ed*ard Teller @
68

Richmond @ 55

O.T. Raw has up that Iran just downed a U.S. drone. Will this be the excuse used to invade Iran now?

If the drone was over Iranian airspace, the Iranians have every right to shoot it down if it doesn’t respond to requests to identify itself and land. Additionally, some drones are armed. If that is the case, the US has committed an act of war.

Iran shoots down U.S. spy drone amid growing military pressure

old gold at 53 — Most likely there is a single juror being questioned individually. The remainder of the pool will be sequestered in a jury room in some other area of the courthouse or out in the hallways. Those who have been dismissed are free to go home, to work wherever, but they do not then hang around to watch proceedings. Pach can confirm on this, but that’s the standard procedure.

Wells is now working on this guy on Russert, since they used to be neighbors.

Jane Hamsher @ 38

I think we are on to something here, sending a shrink to jury selection. Could start a trend.

I got tons of gift certificates for shrink services as presents for the holidays.

;-)

I’ll check to see if I have any left to donate.

excellect work Pach

Angie and E.T. - I agree completely; And, also fear that this event will be used as an excuse for us to invade. There was something similar before the Iraq invasion as I recall -claims Saddam was trying to shoot down U.S. planes over their airspace.

looseheadprop @ 65

Ambassador Wilson,

The restraint shown by you and your wife though this long journey has been remarkable.

Many a crime victim would be sitting front and center in the courtroom.

You are SO correct to let Scooter and his actions be the focus here

e looseheadprop @ 65

Ambassador Wilson,

The restraint shown by you and your wife though this long journey has been remarkable.

Many a crime victim would be sitting front and center in the courtroom.

You are SO correct to let Scooter and his actions be the focus here

Whenever we feel the frustration (and it does happen) we remember that whatever they may have
done to us is mere inconvenience compared to what they have done to the country, and in particular to those who wear the uniforms of the armed services and their families. It keeps everything in perspective.

When I’ve been called to jury duty (Virginia), the judges told us that even though we may have some knowledge about cases, they were very sure most of us could set aside hearsay and make our verdicts based upon presented evidence only. FWIW.

Also there’s been some interesting discussion about courtroom dynamics. Aren’t judges aware of the various ploys and plays for influence from both sides?

dang! anyone else still having toobestrubbles???
CALL ME FRUSTRATED!!!

btw, gang, I am typing to you this morning from a brand new laptop — my prior one having fried yesterday afternoon in a fit of pique at being overworked and under-rested. So, say hello to the new workhorse. here’s hoping she works better than the last one and that i get used to this keyboard soon so that the typos won’t be so plentiful…

Renee in Ohio @ 37

Not sure how many people know about these virtual candle pages, but I set up a page for Jane.

You can light just one candle for a person or whatever intention you wish–world peace, anyone? Or you can start a “group” of candles, which allows you to put all the candles that are lit for one person to be together in one place. I like that, because for those of us who belong to caring communities on the web, in times of difficulty, it’s nice to have a visual representation of all those people gathered in support.

I like this very much. One suggestion, however, the background for the pull-down menu is yellow and the font is white, so it’s very difficult to read. You might want to choose a darker font. Otherwise, lovely idea.

OT/EPU: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock from seven to five minutes to midnight today.

Surprisingly, the Board Statement does not directly mention the Bush Administration’s decision to supply India with civilian nuclear technology as a factor, while Iran and North Korea do figure, as does the 2001 standoff between India and Pakistan.

There is also a lengthy section on the problems of Global Warming.

Amb. Wilson,
We met briefly during the DNC, summer 2004 when you were on a panel in Cambridge. We were both getting coffee and I said that I hoped that Fitzgerald would do a good job for you and your wife. Little did I know that we would all be here at this time focused on every detail of what we hope will be exposing the deeds of this evil administration to the light of justice.

I continue to hope that Fitz does well not just for your sake but for all of us and the country. I think he will.

Christy! Pach! FDL TECHIES!!!

whoa… that very special, AWFUL feeling when the toobes were clogged. egad guys. gotta sit a spell & let the ole ticker calm down… whew.

OT: Watched the WHOLE Lehrer interview w/ our favorite darling cheerleadder last night. Riveting. Honest. Biggest thrill: having Lehrer shift imperceptibly from surely pre-announced, canned questions & expected pseudoanswers - BUMP - straight to a real unanswerable !DOOZIE!, every once in awhile, but still in that same calm, soothing voice he always has. Then listening & watching that guy in t’other chair as it begins to dawn on him that Lehrer’s just gonna let him talk, & talk, & talk, without the slightest interruption.
The whole schtick’s agonizing in its subtle beauty. You can see the glib beginning, complete with the patented grunt [translation: oh yeah, yep, got-er right here, rif # such&such], then the panic slowly sets in, the speech falters, then re-starts, then clicks into & out of miscellaneous memoriziggered bits ‘n pieces of jibberjabber… and STILL Lehrer sits there & lets him grope, & pant, & sweat, f.o.r.e.v.e.r.

Ooooh it were good. and he’s our leader in chief. how proud we are… and how thankful to see him as eloquent as he can possibly be. Why, he didn’t even have to say, “Now wait. Just let me finish!” even once.

Nice job Jim, but do try ta get control over that lil’ twinkle in yer eye. ;->

Adie @
80

dang! anyone else still having toobestrubbles???
CALL ME FRUSTRATED!!!

yeah, it’s slow going this AM. I’m sure they are furiously working on it and will have it fixed soon — as they always do.

Christy,

Have you heard the “son’s (or daughter’s) basketball (or soccer or liittle league, for that matter) game ref” analogy made in jury selection before?

Not my choice, mandrake. Unless they’ve changed something at Gratefulness.org to allow that kind of customization.

It’s not my site–just one I’ve used and like the idea.

This guy has so much tangential familiarity with so many moving parts in the near universe of this case, I can’t see him getting through. I don’t want to say more because I could identify him, but he’s answering all the fairness questions exactly right. I think he’ll survive any challenges for cause, but one side or the other won’t take a risk on him and will peremptory. He could have a great deal of influence over the rest of the jury. I think Fitz would be more likely to risk having him than Wells would.

What a long inquiry!

Pachacutec @ 15

Ok, I’m back. We have reviewed three jurors so far and we just had another struck who said, “I certainly can’t believe any statement by the Bush administration.” Walton: does that include Mr. Libby? “Yes.”

She was excused. The other two today are still live options, but may one has prosecutor friends, and may not survive peremptory challenge.

You have to wonder if there’s a manual circulating on “How To Be Excused From The Scooter Libby Jury.” A very short manual.

Whenever we feel the frustration (and it does happen) we remember that whatever they may have
done to us is mere inconvenience compared to what they have done to the country, and in particular to those who wear the uniforms of the armed services and their families. It keeps everything in perspective.

Joe@78 - We Salute You!

Pach–

When you have time, can you say, roughly, what percentage of jurors interviewed thus far are government workers? Does that percentage hold for the number of jurors seated?

Renee,

The candle page is a great idea … a good place to focus energy on Jane’s quick recovery.

Pachacutec @
71

Fitz really drilling down on this guys ability to be fair. Used an analogy of referreeing his son’s basketball game: would you have to work hard to be fair, or to avoid trying to push to the other side by way of being as fair as you can be? Would the struggle to be fair based on your personal potential worries about bias prevent make it difficult for you?

It was nicely done, I thought. And the guy said, in fact, he has referreed his son’s basketball games.

Question for LHP, CHS, and other legal eagles: What are the chances that Fitz knew this about the guy before he asked the question?

montag @ 92

Pach–

When you have time, can you say, roughly, what percentage of jurors interviewed thus far are government workers? Does that percentage hold for the number of jurors seated?

When I have time I’ll look back at my notes.

Ed*ard at 82 — Yes. It’s actually a pretty common one around these parts, because in a small town sort of place, i’s a really good analogy to what you might be feeling when you are asked to judge the credibility of someone you likely know — or know family of, at the very least. Plus, it is a friendly way to get at an issue of bias without insulting the potential juror. It’s a good strategy from Fitz.

thanks twolf1. If you say it’s slow, it must be. heh! carry on wit yer normal programming & I’ll keep up as best I can.

FDLrocks!!!

RevDeb @ 84

Amb. Wilson,
We met briefly during the DNC, summer 2004 when you were on a panel in Cambridge. We were both getting coffee and I said that I hoped that Fitzgerald would do a good job for you and your wife. Little did I know that we would all be here at this time focused on every detail of what we hope will be exposing the deeds of this evil administration to the light of justice.

I continue to hope that Fitz does well not just for your sake but for all of us and the country. I think he will.

I have great faith in a system of governance that is based on the rule of law, and as much confidence in the person of Pat Fitzgerald as I have in anybody outside my wife. The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack.

Whew: we have a 10 minute break now. This last back and forth with this one guy took about an hour.

Ambassador Wilson

It is the abilty to not act out frustration, the self discipline that you both have shown that impresses me.

Similarly, I have been impressed by the self discipline shown by Team Fitz and imagining what has been bottled up behind their very professional refusal to give press conferences inthe driveway while taking out the household trash.

Lacking much of it myself, I always notice and admire it in others.

Our republic and our Constitution are being destroyed before our very eyes and some still believe in this administration… it is mind-boggling in the extreme.

Joe Wilson @ 98

RevDeb @ 84

Amb. Wilson,
We met briefly during the DNC, summer 2004 when you were on a panel in Cambridge. We were both getting coffee and I said that I hoped that Fitzgerald would do a good job for you and your wife. Little did I know that we would all be here at this time focused on every detail of what we hope will be exposing the deeds of this evil administration to the light of justice.

I continue to hope that Fitz does well not just for your sake but for all of us and the country. I think he will.

I have great faith in a system of governance that is based on the rule of law, and as much confidence in the person of Pat Fitzgerald as I have in anybody outside my wife. The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack.

Add to that the fact that a Pentagon official apologized for attacking lawyers who do work for Gitmo detainees - and apologized publicly! . . . yep, they are definitely afraid of the rule of law.

Peace to you and Valerie, Ambassador!

Is there a chance that the WAPO pulled strings to get this guy on the jury list, or is it merely chance?

Pachacutec, I’m curious. Does it seem like the reactions of the jurors to the two sides involved is fairly even, or are there smiles and physical reactions/body language showing to one side more than the other?

-S

Peterr at 94 — Good.

Strategerie @ 104

Pachacutec, I’m curious. Does it seem like the reactions of the jurors to the two sides involved is fairly even, or are there smiles and physical reactions/body language showing to one side more than the other?

-S

No pattern, really. The questioning is begun by the judge, and each side has the opportunity for follow up.

Crazy Horse @ 103

Is there a chance that the WAPO pulled strings to get this guy on the jury list, or is it merely chance?

that this is even pondered would seem to disqualify this person.

Peterr @ 94

Pachacutec @
71

Fitz really drilling down on this guys ability to be fair. Used an analogy of referreeing his son’s basketball game: would you have to work hard to be fair, or to avoid trying to push to the other side by way of being as fair as you can be? Would the struggle to be fair based on your personal potential worries about bias prevent make it difficult for you?

It was nicely done, I thought. And the guy said, in fact, he has referreed his son’s basketball games.

Question for LHP, CHS, and other legal eagles: What are the chances that Fitz knew this about the guy before he asked the question?

Low. But I do not doubt that FItz (who is a famous news addict) doesn’t know all about the background of hte people and stories he’s asking about. I woud like to hear more of the specifics of the questions (poor pach’s fingers!) b/c it occurs to me that Pat is using this oppurtunity to learn things about potential witness. To get new insights from a unique perspective not previously availbale to him.

This juror may be more like a freebie GJ witness for Pat

It is the Wilsons, the Fitzgeralds, the Bunny Greenhouses, the Lt. Commander Swifts that are going to save this country. The good news is that there are far more people of this kind of character than the administration realizes.

We SHALL overcome.

Crazy Horse at 103 — Jury lists are compiled through a variety of means: registered voters, drivers license and registration lists; property tax roles; etc., etc., depending on the jurisdiction. The WaPo had nothing to do with this guy getting on the list.

So now we’re all relaxing a bit. They’ve been feeling me out a bit more as the blogger today, at least, before we all started taking frantic notes.

I’ve been very well received, though there’s a certain amount of caution under the surface.

gotta go head to the offcie now.I can’t believe the time! Yeeks

Pach - who is the “they” - MSM or…..

RevDeb @ 109

It is the Wilsons, the Fitzgeralds, the Bunny Greenhouses, the Lt. Commander Swifts that are going to save this country. The good news is that there are far more people of this kind of character than the administration realizes.

We SHALL overcome.

Well said!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 105

Peterr at 94 — Good.

If any trial in recent memory is high profile, this is certainly one…

Do the lawyers know a lot about the potential jurors in advance?

Richmond @ 113

Pach - who is the “they” - MSM or…..

The other journalists here, establishment media.

In stark contrast to what you and your wife have done FOR the country, Joe… you’re both inspirations to us all…

Joe Wilson @
78

Whenever we feel the frustration (and it does happen) we remember that whatever they may have
done to us is mere inconvenience compared to what they have done to the country, and in particular to those who wear the uniforms of the armed services and their families. It keeps everything in perspective.

Crazy Horse @ 103

Is there a chance that the WAPO pulled strings to get this guy on the jury list, or is it merely chance?

Not really. The Federal Courts I’ve been around take random juror selection very seriously. Jurors are identified by a randomly generated number, and then pulled in for questioning in a randomly selected order. Any monkey-business would show up.

Randomness can create really strange coincidences, and this is most likely one of them.

BC

Pachacutec @ 111

So now we’re all relaxing a bit. They’ve been feeling me out a bit more as the blogger today, at least, before we all started taking frantic notes.

I’ve been very well received, though there’s a certain amount of caution under the surface.

careful not to show too much fang when you smile ;->

Wells, who is an African American, just did some background questioning of a white juror with a working class history and a history of much interracial social background. My take on this is, Wells wanted to establish a bond based on race with this potential juror. This juror is sensitive to race and class issues and Wells wants him on his side.

Pachacutec @ 111

So now we’re all relaxing a bit. They’ve been feeling me out a bit more as the blogger today, at least, before we all started taking frantic notes.

I’ve been very well received, though there’s a certain amount of caution under the surface.

Congratulations for being ‘the bright shiny object’ of the moment.

Thanks again for the incredible work

Amb Wilson and Valerie - thank you for your optimistic dedication and perseverance. You both serve as a source of inspiration to continue faith in our system. I second the many great comments of you made here.

Angie at 115 — It really depends on the jurisdiction. In the state court in the county where I practiced, we could get copies of the initial juror questionaires in advance of trial, and always did so to keep an eye out for stuff like relatives of people we had recently sent to prison or folks with a criminal history and the like. Folks that wouldn’t be so keen on prosecutors to begin with, ya know? I’ve never practiced in the DC Circuit, so I do not know what their standard pre-trial procedure is for something like this. Anyone have DC Circuit trial experience that knows how Walton and the other judges generally handle juror questionnaires or other background information that might be available to counsel?

Richmond @
77

Angie and E.T. - I agree completely; And, also fear that this event will be used as an excuse for us to invade. There was something similar before the Iraq invasion as I recall -claims Saddam was trying to shoot down U.S. planes over their airspace.

There was something about this. It was all oddly similar to the plan to paint a US plane in UN colors, etc. Would say more, but am hanging on Pach’s every comment. :)

Amb Wilson, Ms Plame you honor FDL by your presence.
Thank you both for your service and dedication.

Pachacutec @
120

Wells, who is an African American, just did some background questioning of a white juror with a working class history and a history of much interracial social background. My take on this is, Wells wanted to establish a bond based on race with this potential juror. This juror is sensitive to race and class issues and Wells wants him on his side.

Wells is not invited to our party!

This next witness made us all laugh about her net surfing: “I’m a master of all thing pop culture but I’m hopeless on current events.”

Pach, you are hands-down my second-favorite Peruvian deity (after Yma Sumac).

Thanks TECHIES! Toobes clear & fast, in these parts anyway ;->>>

Pachacutec @ 126

This next witness made us all laugh about her net surfing: “I’m a master of all thing pop culture but I’m hopeless on current events.”

Pach,
You are really doing a terrific job. I feel like I am in the room. Congratulations on your perspicacity and situational awareness.

Are there any obvious mistakes which could occur in a trial such as this that might lead to a mistrial?

Jeffress asked her if she remembered the Judge’s memory questions from yesterday.

“I do remember that!”

Very sharp. She was applying the irony, very quick wit. Funny.

Black Panther Party - so were you close friends with Scooter back in the day (re. NYT this AM)? What was he really like in the core of his being?? (snark -:-]

I do hope Jane gets a chance to sit in on the Cheney testimony.

(((rubbing hands together)))

CHS - you’ve got mail, while there’s a break in the action.

Dear Jane.

Several cancer survivors among friends and family.

We send love and strength.

{{{{{HUGS}}}}}

Her actual quote: “I’m a master of all things pop culture but nothing about current events.” Amy Goodstein and others just helped me get it right!

Amb. Wilson,

Is Melanie Sloan as great as she seems to be?

Ed*ard Teller @ 58

Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

Richmond and all — Our tech geniuses are working on it. I think we’ve identified the problem and it looks like we’ll be fully running again momentarily. (Luv people who know what they are doing with a computer, don’t you?)

this is Redd’s nice way of saying that the techies have once more discovered Sen. Ted Stevens has been sneaking visits to fdl. Every time he opens this page, it slows way, way, way down……..

Well, no wonder, he has to get his big, fat head through all those toobz n’ things. Bound to clog things up.

Sharkbabe @
36

FITZ y’all

holy shit, just caught up with Jane thing

you’ve got these bastards on the run Jane

Sharkbabe, hey!

Next up, 30’s African American woman.

CREWphile @ 137

Amb. Wilson,

Is Melanie Sloan as great as she seems to be?

Even better.

if impartial jurors cant be “found” you think they’ll move to a more “repug-friendly area” of the metro DC area? just curious……….

Holy smokes. She once worked in the executive office staff of the White House, under previous administrations. The questioning on this could get interesting.

EvilDrPuma @ 90

Pachacutec @ 15

Ok, I’m back. We have reviewed three jurors so far and we just had another struck who said, “I certainly can’t believe any statement by the Bush administration.” Walton: does that include Mr. Libby? “Yes.”

She was excused. The other two today are still live options, but may one has prosecutor friends, and may not survive peremptory challenge.

You have to wonder if there’s a manual circulating on “How To Be Excused From The Scooter Libby Jury.” A very short manual.

It’s interesting to wonder about whether the desire to avoid service is worse for one side or the other. I was on Jury Duty in November. Civil cases in NYC. There’s a clear plaintiff bias. The people who most wanted to get out of serving made a point of saying that they thought that the system was broken, that it awards too much money to too many plaintiffs.

At some point in one of these exchanges, the lawyer (for the plaintiff, oddly enough) remarked that if you really think that’s the case, you should want to be on a jury.

In general, the people most willing to say whatever it took to get struck seemed to be well-paid professional types–doctors, lawyers in particular.

OTOH, in this case a wingnut may try to talk his way onto the panel. Small town and all, you have to wonder whether the defense team has tried to find out some external information about the potential jurists.

Is that permissible? Can I take the list of potential jurors and have a clerk google them?

peace and love jane hamsher. i always stop at fdl to read me some jane. your brilliant. increase the fire power and keep shooting from the hip.

mandrake @ 138

Ed*ard Teller @ 58

Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

this is Redd’s nice way of saying that the techies have once more discovered Sen. Ted Stevens has been sneaking visits to fdl. Every time he opens this page, it slows way, way, way down……..

Well, no wonder, he has to get his big, fat head through all those toobz n’ things. Bound to clog things up.

geebus, cant teddie just trot down the hall like the rest of the pugs? No doubt the drapes are purtier in there anyway.*g*

Renee in Ohio @ 50

One of the legacies of my Slovak-American grandma is some of her grandkids are candle-lighting junkies. ;)

Hey, Renee, I’m also 100% Slovak heritage! Nice to meet you.

Richmond @ 132

Black Panther Party - so were you close friends with Scooter back in the day (re. NYT this AM)? What was he really like in the core of his being?? (snark -:-]

Scooter X (Amb. to da Man) was tight with everyone in the Party especially the original six Panthers - Elbert “Big Man” Howard; Huey P. Newton (Defense Minister), Sherman Forte, Bobby Seale (Chairman). Reggie Forte and Little Bobby Hutton (Treasurer).

Scooter kept it real with his passion for justice and Yalie spirit.

new thread

***Pachacutec continues to liveblog jury selection in the comments. To maintain site speed, we’re going to try and keep comment threads at an optimal size. Please check the prior post for details on the start of today’s court proceedings in the Libby case. Jury selection continues.***

Question for the lawyers: Libby’s team seems to be (understandably) going after potential jurors who say they trust Cheney less than the average witness. Can Fitz challenge potential jurors who say they trust Cheney MORE than the average witness?

Black Panther Party @ 148

Scooter kept it real with his passion for justice and Yalie spirit.

I can’t believe they allowed him to live.
hey…any chance he was their grant application writer?

Pachacutec @ 57

Now Fitz is asking him about familiarity with Judy Miller’s refusal to give up a source. He does not remember who the source was.

Technically speaking, is Judy Miller an eyewitness to the crimes Scooter-Baby is charged with?

She is only a witness to the conversations she had with him in which he may have disclosed the classified information about Mrs Plame Wilson’s classified status at the CIA. The alleged lies and purjury came later when Scooter-Baby spoke with the FBI investigators and testified under oath to the Grand Jury.

I assume the FBI investigator with whom Scooter spoke will testify. Having a person tell the story is more compelling than submitting a transcript of a conversation.

As for the Grand Jury purjory charges, who can be called to testify so that a human face can be put on that testimony?

How is the case for the obstruction charge formed. Can Fitz make a case about motive layered on top of the facts presented about Scooter-Baby’s prevarication?

These are just some idle thoughts, I wanted to share. It’s good to here in the company of Pach, Jane, Christy, TRex, FirePups, Amb Joe Wilson, Fitz! and David Corn. Wow. Today is a good day for justice.

and what of bob novak and timm russert?

Next up: a 60ish African American man.

Frank Probst @ 150

Question for the lawyers: Libby’s team seems to be (understandably) going after potential jurors who say they trust Cheney less than the average witness. Can Fitz challenge potential jurors who say they trust Cheney MORE than the average witness?

Frank, the cryptozoologists might have something say about this.

He doesn’t read newspapers, just the Bible.

Black Panther Party @ 72
Who do you think the immunized witness is?

Rove?

This is a very troubling development. Christy - LHP others? Do you think there is a possibility of AG meddling in this caseJoe Wilson @ 98

. . . The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack.

Pach, I can’t see the outcome re: the 30-something African American woman who once worked in White House.

Did they keep her or challenge?

Sonoma at 158 — The AG is recused form this case, having been WH counsel when the mess unfolded. So, no, he can’t meddle in this particular legal matter. However, he could mess with Fitz’ position in Chicago — of course, there would be dire political repercussions were he to do so while this trial is proceeding…

So, my guess is that any vindictive retaliation wil be held until after this case, if at all.

looseheadprop @
65

Ambassador Wilson,

The restraint shown by you and your wife though this long journey has been remarkable.

Many a crime victim would be sitting front and center in the courtroom.

You are SO correct to let Scooter and his actions be the focus here

Ambassador Wilson, always a great honor to have you on an FDL thread.

Rayne @ 159

Pach, I can’t see the outcome re: the 30-something African American woman who once worked in White House.

Did they keep her or challenge?

She’s still a live option, but there have been no peremptories yet. We have 12 still “alive” out of 16 reviewed. We need to get to 36 “alive,” before peremptories.

Next up, 30’s white female.

John Casper @ 161

looseheadprop @
65

Ambassador Wilson,

The restraint shown by you and your wife though this long journey has been remarkable.

Many a crime victim would be sitting front and center in the courtroom.

You are SO correct to let Scooter and his actions be the focus here

Ambassador Wilson, always a great honor to have you on an FDL thread.

Actually, I am the one who benefits from being here and reading the insights of all of you. Thank you. I am flattered.

Lacking much of it myself, I always notice and admire it in others.

LMAO.

the last couple are thankfully seeming to sail through, but this one is still under review. She has prior jury experience in a murder case that Fitz is inquiring after.

My favorite Matalin quote from the Times article:

“He’s going to be the poster boy for the criminalization of politics”

Fitzgerald’s investigating a case where the WH drove politics into the criminal realm (exposing a spy for political payback)… lo and behold, Libby’s the poster boy for the “criminalization of politics.”

Isn’t it ironic.

Pachacutec @ 89

This guy has so much tangential familiarity with so many moving parts in the near universe of this case, I can’t see him getting through. I don’t want to say more because I could identify him, but he’s answering all the fairness questions exactly right. I think he’ll survive any challenges for cause, but one side or the other won’t take a risk on him and will peremptory. He could have a great deal of influence over the rest of the jury. I think Fitz would be more likely to risk having him than Wells would.

Do you think a reporter/juror could convict a “source” for lying and then go to sources for information? His identification would come out either during or after the trial and voting to convict/acquit could hurt him either way. I will wager he doesn’t make the final cut. I don’t think Fitz will take him if only because he refereed his kids basketball game.

What a long inquiry!

For any FDLers who want to catch up on Jane’s situation, here’s the thread, Three Time loser Winner from yesterday.

Christy Hardin Smith @
81

btw, gang, I am typing to you this morning from a brand new laptop — my prior one having fried yesterday afternoon in a fit of pique at being overworked and under-rested. So, say hello to the new workhorse. here’s hoping she works better than the last one and that i get used to this keyboard soon so that the typos won’t be so plentiful…

When I come back I want to be Christy’s computer! Here’s a big ‘welcome to the Lake’ for your new girl, Christy. She have a name? She’s picked a plum (Plame?) asssignment and betw you and the Peanut will have a fascinating life.

Fitzgerald currently has (the stupid and/or corrupt) Dem. Gov. Blagojevich in the crosshairs. So, among other self-serving reasons, I think the Prez/AG would be hard-pressed to dismiss Fitzgerald right now. Additionally, Daley’s administration remains a cesspool of corruption. And Fitzgerald’s dismissal would please no one more than Obama advisor, David Axelrod.

Wells seems like he has to work to come across as congenial, but this is something that comes to me only after repeat exposure.

Ok, on to the next one, British accent. 40ish white female.

Frank Probst @ 150

Question for the lawyers: Libby’s team seems to be (understandably) going after potential jurors who say they trust Cheney less than the average witness. Can Fitz challenge potential jurors who say they trust Cheney MORE than the average witness?

Absolutely. Bias is bias.

Though it seems to me that a juror sho trusted Cheney *more* than average would also be subject to questioning as to his/her sanity.

She works for a big defense contractor in business development.

They definitely seem to be sure Wells questions the African American prospective jurors. Jeffress is doing this one. I don’t notice any other pattern behind when one does voir dire versus the other. They have some standard questions that interest them, and they go fishing to ferret out things about each potential juror.

What about challenges for cause? I understand they’ve already released 4 for bias, but is that it for cause — is all that’s left the peremptories?

I’m really surprised if that’s so. I’ve been through more voir dires than I can remember, and the process of challenging for cause routinely has gone on for quite some time.

Are rules different in federal cases? Do they seem especially limited in this case?

How many peremptory challenges does the defense team get? My general understanding is that there are unlimited challenges “for cause,” but only a limited number of peremptories.

Pach - I may be wrong, but you might want to switch your liveblogging over to the newest thread from Christy. I think the idea is to keep the comments section from getting overextendend.

Pontificator: IIRC there are a total of 20 possible peremptory challenges, split 12 and 8 between defense and prosecution. This explains why the judge wants 37 before peremptories (12 regulars 4 alternates 21 to deal with peremptories).

bleh says

January 17th, 2007 at 9:14 am*

What about challenges for cause? I understand they’ve already released 4 for bias, but is that it for cause — is all that’s left the peremptories?

I’m really surprised if that’s so. I’ve been through more voir dires than I can remember, and the process of challenging for cause routinely has gone on for quite some time.

Are rules different in federal cases? Do they seem especially limited in this case?

In general, to challenge “for cause,” you pretty much have to get the juror to say that he cannot be fair. It’s a pretty high standard.

A peremptory challenge doesn;t need a reason. However, you can;t make a peremptory challenge on the basis of race (under the SCOTUS’s Batson case). Also, each side only has a limited number of peremptories. Not sure what the number is here.

My understanding is defense gets 12 peremptories, and there may yet be opportunities to challenge for cause, though I have seen one challenge for cause by the defense be denied. Prosecution, as I understand it, gets 6 peremptories.

This potential juror has a husband in Iraq.

Pachacutec says:

January 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am *

My understanding is defense gets 12 peremptories, and there may yet be opportunities to challenge for cause, though I have seen one challenge for cause by the defense be denied. Prosecution, as I understand it, gets 6 peremptories.

Thanks Pach — Kudos on your liveblogging.

ccmask @
70

Here is the Amazon page for Scooter Libby’s book entitled “Apprentice” for anyone into a crotch grabbing thruster of a book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi.....ref=nosim/

neil @ 152

Pachacutec @ 57

Now Fitz is asking him about familiarity with Judy Miller’s refusal to give up a source. He does not remember who the source was.

Technically speaking, is Judy Miller an eyewitness to the crimes Scooter-Baby is charged with?

She is only a witness to the conversations she had with him in which he may have disclosed the classified information about Mrs Plame Wilson’s classified status at the CIA. The alleged lies and purjury came later when Scooter-Baby spoke with the FBI investigators and testified under oath to the Grand Jury.

I assume the FBI investigator with whom Scooter spoke will testify. Having a person tell the story is more compelling than submitting a transcript of a conversation.

As for the Grand Jury purjory charges, who can be called to testify so that a human face can be put on that testimony?

How is the case for the obstruction charge formed. Can Fitz make a case about motive layered on top of the facts presented about Scooter-Baby’s prevarication?

These are just some idle thoughts, I wanted to share. It’s good to here in the company of Pach, Jane, Christy, TRex, FirePups, Amb Joe Wilson, Fitz! and David Corn. Wow. Today is a good day for justice.

This is, IMO, an excellent sign. LibbyCo wanted to exclude all discussion of Judy’s refusal to bust Scooter. But yesterday’s witness and mention list makes it clear that, at least so far, Walton considers it admissible. Which means that Fitz is going to use Judy’s hold-out against Scooter, and to make her current testimony more reliable. You go Fitz!!!

Oops

The response to ccmask was supposed to be a “don’t bother.” Read the damn novel for the book, and, from this PhD in literature’s perspective, the novel was juvenile and underdeveloped. Not to mention that he set it in Japan to give it an enigmatic setting, but without (apparently) knowing enough about Japanese culture to make it authentic.

Says something, I think.

This woman says she believes critics of the Commander in Chief, she has not problem with hearing their criticism, becasue they don’t really know all the facts, aren’t included in private White House deliberations.

This could be a prosecution peremptory. Though she answers as one who wil weigh everyone’s credibility as she sees it, including Cheney, she’s the classic believer in military presidential authority that favors the defense.

Ok. Last one before lunch. 30’s white female.

emptywheel @ 185

Oops

The response to ccmask was supposed to be a “don’t bother.” Read the damn novel for the book, and, from this PhD in literature’s perspective, the novel was juvenile and underdeveloped. Not to mention that he set it in Japan to give it an enigmatic setting, but without (apparently) knowing enough about Japanese culture to make it authentic.

Says something, I think.

For some reason, I thought your PhD was in history … have you got more than one?

Pach

If you have a moment, I’d love to hear more about the questions of the Woodward associate. I’m curious if it reveals anything about Fitz’ expectation of Woodward’s role in the trial.

Per everyone else, thanks so much Pach.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 188

emptywheel @ 185

Oops

The response to ccmask was supposed to be a “don’t bother.” Read the damn novel for the book, and, from this PhD in literature’s perspective, the novel was juvenile and underdeveloped. Not to mention that he set it in Japan to give it an enigmatic setting, but without (apparently) knowing enough about Japanese culture to make it authentic.

Says something, I think.

For some reason, I thought your PhD was in history … have you got more than one?

Undergrad history, PhD CompLit (though I did a research seminar in History). I studied a 19th-20th century literary-journalistic form, so I did a lot of work with newspaper archives. Most of the historians in my areas of study (19th C French, 19-20th C Argentine, and 19-20th C Czech) knew my work fairly well and used to say it’d make a good history project–but it’d be harder to get the support to work in three traditions. Same gig with communications, actually. I ended up in CompLit so I could work across traditions.

emptywheel @ 189

Pach

If you have a moment, I’d love to hear more about the questions of the Woodward associate. I’m curious if it reveals anything about Fitz’ expectation of Woodward’s role in the trial.

I’ll check my notes, such as they are. Defense as clearly asked about hypothetical that Russert’s testinony will contradict Libby’s, and they have seeded the feild that this could be an innocent memory dispute, nothing more.

really good work, pach - is either side talking much about a verdict based on the evidence alone and not on any feelings of “fairness” a prospective juror might have in an attempt to be fair to both sides?

Over on Slate, Dickerson has commented on the financial analyst who stood up for bloggers, viz.: “Some of them are pretty good.” Any responses toward you from MSMers?

Pach….

re: earlier speculation that this morning’s conference was about Fitz’s objections to the Defense’s questioning of perspective jurors….

Things seem to be moving much faster this AM. Is there a line (or lines) of questions pursued by Wells/Jeffries yesterday that they are not pursuing today?

emptywheel @ 184.
Waas’s most recent article claims the NYT misrepresented Miller’s reasons for refusing to testify. Will a case about her Miller’s real reason be made in court? What evidence will be the backbone of the obstruction charge? Will it be based on the story of the bigger picture - OVP’s method of operation - and will their be specific evidence to support it?

Jesus B. Ochoa @ 193

really good work, pach - is either side talking much about a verdict based on the evidence alone and not on any feelings of “fairness” a prospective juror might have in an attempt to be fair to both sides?

Yes, this is woven through everyone’s questioning, and the Judge covers it as well. This will also get really hammered in to jurors when the Judge empanels and gives instructions.

This case will be appealed by Lubby if he loses… Not being a lawyer, appeals are not about fact, but about procedure… no? How does the prosecutor take this into consideration? Can appeals be brought based on some aspect of the jury selection? Or would that be a motion to dismiss by the defense?

If there is some issue with the jury would a new jury be empaneled and the case presented before them?

It seems that sometimes the lawyers prevent the facts from being heard by the jury… or am I crazy as usual?

RevDeb… you forgot to add Jane, and Christy to the names of courageous citizens who will save this country.

Good Vibes to Ms Hamsher!

emptywheel @ 191

I studied a 19th-20th century literary-journalistic form, so I did a lot of work with newspaper archives.

The feuilleton?

Things seem to be moving much faster this AM. Is there a line (or lines) of questions pursued by Wells/Jeffries yesterday that they are not pursuing today?

No. I don’t notice any change in pattern or content of questions, nor has anyone in the press room suggested any change.

Betting that Wells had the prospective juror list researched down to which dentist the juror goes to. Have had experience of attorneys giving us juror lists and asking if we know anyone and what can we tell them about ‘em.

Anybody else speculating that the USAtty firings are a ham-handed note to PatFitz? Just the kind of Sun Tzu tactic Rover would come up with…kill the rooster to scare the monkey?

But I don’t think PatFitz is the scare-able type. Fascinating to watch history and the rule of law work its will.

Sidebar to Peterboy @ 49, 56: Cruella de Matalin is blowin’ smoke. Two words: Ken Starr.

For all the mess these idiots have brought down on America, including an apparent act of treason as the elder Bush once alluded to, if it were not for these vindictive jerks I would never have known of Reddhead or Jane Hamsher or Ambassador Wilson and his most beautiful wife, Valerie, or any other of the bloggers and commenters who have somasterfully followed this case. For that, I am thankful. But only that.

Pachacutec @ 187 says:
Ok. Last one before lunch. 30’s white female.

Are they done with this one. Are we on lunch break? Back at 1:30?

Still inquiring. She has had some professional, brief contact with one witness who will be called. Both sides digging. She also has feelings about the justification for the war that she’s not quite explained yet. She looks uncomfortable.

Black Panther Party says:

“Stop prosecuting the white black man known as Scooter! He is one of us, man!”

LOL! I couldn’t help but laugh at that comment. Irve sounds like a Huey Newton wannabe. A lot of my fellow blogger friends bagged about brotherman Irve’s tie all day long yesterday. I hope that he didn’t wear another identical tie as he did yesterday. Does anyone know what brotherman Irve is wearing today? I am looking forward to hearing more updates of day two.

Wells asking her more about prosecutors going after journalists’ sources, as this witness has some journalism background.

This area of reporter’s privilege is clearly in play, emptywheel.

Fitz asked her more questions about the Judy stuff. Judy sounds like a bankable witness, but that may not be news.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/17/111247/445

According to Time, potential anti-Bush jurors are being excluded:

Fitzgerald complained that defense attorneys Theodore Wells and William Jeffress were turning jury selection into “an open-ended Rorschach test into how you feel about the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney” the Iraq war and various reporters. “They’re trying the case” in jury selection, he argued.

But Walton ruled the defense lawyers have a right to know if “somebody has a very negative attitude to the Bush administration.”
In other words, the jury is looking more and more like it’s going to be pulled from the ever-shrinking Fox News pool of the misinformed.

It is not generally understood in the population that Fitz’s subpeona of Miller and Cooper for their grand jury testimony was justified beause of the situation in which the alleged crime occurred; they (each) were ‘the only’ witness to the potential crime.

I wonder if the defense needs to perpetuate this prevailing view to keep their client out of jail.

Ok. time to break for lunch. I need some refreshment. I’ll probably doa fresh thread for the afternoon.

Nice comment from Matalin who is all about the politicalization of crime. Matalin does for crime what Clausewitz did for war-Crime is just politics carried out by other means.

neil @ 196

emptywheel @ 184.
Waas’s most recent article claims the NYT misrepresented Miller’s reasons for refusing to testify. Will a case about her Miller’s real reason be made in court? What evidence will be the backbone of the obstruction charge? Will it be based on the story of the bigger picture - OVP’s method of operation - and will their be specific evidence to support it?

Here’s my take on the obstruction charge.

Since it seems like Fitz will be able to include some of Libby’s attempts to coach Judy (thus the mentions of Bennett, Abrams, and Tate), it means he will also likely argue that Libby didn’t care who testified so long as Judy didn’t.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 199

emptywheel @ 191

I studied a 19th-20th century literary-journalistic form, so I did a lot of work with newspaper archives.

The feuilleton?

Yeah, did you know it–or have you actually heard of it independently?

Thanks Pach. I hear the soup is good. Try the veal. I’ll be here until Thursday.

fdlblog @ 211

Nice comment from Matalin who is all about the politicalization of crime. Matalin does for crime what Clausewitz did for war-Crime is just politics carried out by other means.

The cynical among us would say that politics is just crime carried out by other means. :)

After all, it was Twain who said there is no native criminal class in the United States, except for Congress. :)

Lunchtime! Yabadabadoooo!

Pachacutec @ 207

Fitz asked her more questions about the Judy stuff. Judy sounds like a bankable witness, but that may not be news.

Nah, that’s not news. But keep in mind I suspect Fitz is plotting a way to turn all of Judy’s unreliability back onto Scooter, by highlighting her attempts not to testify.

Remember, we only know what her testimony is. Not what she said pre- and post-perjury trap. So he may well have an example of how she testified at first, and then under duress.

Man I hope I’m there that day.

emptywheel @ 212 = Here’s my take on the obstruction charge… Since it seems like Fitz will be able to include some of Libby’s attempts to coach Judy (thus the mentions of Bennett, Abrams, and Tate), it means he will also likely argue that Libby didn’t care who testified so long as Judy didn’t.

multo bene. graci.

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

emptywheel @ 213

The Nefarious Leslie @ 199

emptywheel @ 191

The feuilleton?

Yeah, did you know it–or have you actually heard of it independently?

I’ve heard of it through my own research. It’s really an interesting historical moment, especially with its parallels to blogging practices today. Just a thought: funding might be easier to come by for an already-published author, as you now are. There’s another book there waiting to be written, imo.

Sonoma Rus @ 158

This is a very troubling development. Christy - LHP others? Do you think there is a possibility of AG meddling in this caseJoe Wilson @ 98

. . . The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack.

This massacre of US Attorneys caught actually DOING THEIR JOBS is of a piece with trying to scare the intelligence community if it didn’t play ball with the Admin.

emptywheel et al.

Anytime you want to hypothesize about the strategy for the government or defense based on the evidence you know so well and the scoop Pach is posting, do it! Do the question help?

I also would enjoy reading some of the questions our better informed and more closely connected participants have. Impaneling the jury is interesting and revealing but it is also a little repetitive. So chime in during the breaks and slow periods with questions and answers.

The insights available among this group assembled here today are nothing short of remarkable.

Ok, that’s my $.02

Greenjeans @ 219

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

That’s my plan for next week, when there will be more court room stuff to get (that is, when I try to capture as much of Fitz’ and Wells’ opening statements as possible).

We’re going to be experimenting with the best way to liveblog. I know I will need some comment buzz to keep it up for an entire day. But I did intend to keep all updates in the top for the stuff that you’ll want detailed notes on.

Maybe that is the Machiavellian play at hand, plug in politicos as Federal prosecutors around the country and threaten (or start) investigations into Democratic Senators and Congressmen if the investigations by Congress start.
Or should I say Rovian play…

Gonzales is to GWB what Tom Hagen was to the Godfather.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 220

emptywheel @ 213

The Nefarious Leslie @ 199

Yeah, did you know it–or have you actually heard of it independently?

I’ve heard of it through my own research. It’s really an interesting historical moment, especially with its parallels to blogging practices today. Just a thought: funding might be easier to come by for an already-published author, as you now are. There’s another book there waiting to be written, imo.

I’d love to talk offline about what you’ve worked on.

But yes, I recently edited a friend’s book which, I think, was accepted at Stanford. And I realized my diss is really close to book form (if I take out all the theory claptrap). So I might try to do that. Though my Czech, in particular, is so rusty, I’d need some help.

My diss was:

Ch. 1: Why everything you’ve learned about Mysteries of Paris is bullshit

Ch. 2: How the feuilleton arose out of the nation-state consent through public state of moderanity (Napoleon 1)

Ch. 3: How the feuilleton spread to places without the same stability of nation-state (Napolon 2 and 3)

Ch. 4: The importance of active reading in teh feuilleton practice

Ch. 5: How the feuilleton works (This chapter is called “Nous est un auteur” playing off of Rimbaud’s Je est un autre, as a commentary on a different kind of modernity than most fuddy duddy literary scholars conceive of it.)

neil @ 222

emptywheel et al.

Anytime you want to hypothesize about the strategy for the government or defense based on the evidence you know so well and the scoop Pach is posting, do it! Do the question help?

I also would enjoy reading some of the questions our better informed and more closely connected participants have. Impaneling the jury is interesting and revealing but it is also a little repetitive. So chime in during the breaks and slow periods with questions and answers.

The insights available among this group assembled here today are nothing short of remarkable.

Ok, that’s my $.02

Neil

The most interesting thing–besides the Judy questions–was the treatment of Woodward. You see, it’s unclear how much Libby is going to be able to use Woodward, and if so, if Fitz can use the NIE stuff to discredit him.

Libby would like to introduce Woodward, who will say, 1) Armitage said “everyone knew it” (referring to Joe’s identity, not Valerie’s, but Libby doesn’t give a shit) then told of Plame’s ID. 2) Woodward may have told Libby of Plame–probably not, but it’s possible. 3) Therefore, Libby maybe just confused Russert with Woodward.

But Fitz’ easy way to use Woodward to strike back at Libby is to raise the fact that Libby leaked the NIE to Woodward without getting Presidential authorization–without even making sure he was authorized to leak the NIE stuff.

Now, it’s not clear Fitz will be allowed to do that (though I’d be surprised if Walton ruled it out). BUt it would make for an interesting dynamic and actually would help Fitz prove the obstruction charge.

Greenjeans at 219 — We’re working on it. :)

Did Woodward have some clearance which made it not a crime to disclose Plame to him?

kim @ 229

Did Woodward have some clearance which made it not a crime to disclose Plame to him?

From Armitage? Armitage didn’t know (or at least has convinced Fitz he didn’t know) that Plame was covert.

And Woodward says that Libby didn’t say anything about Plame.

emptywheel at 227. Wow. Kewl. This helps.

Greetings from Montral. First time reading this blog. I find that Pach is doing an exceptional job.

Thanks.

Can I get some clarification?

I thought I saw transcripts of earlier filings that claim that Libby claimed he was instructed to leak selected information, auth by preznit through VP. The selections of the document were individual parts of a document that remained thought to be classified by others involved and actually by some working the normal procedure to declassify it.

This information usage explains the conflicting claims of classified status and/or saw some but not all of a document. It looks like bits and pieces were deliberately released from various origins to be assembled later in the media in a natural process.

This doesn’t address perjury issues, just my understanding of part of what happened. Is this close?

emptywheel @ 230

kim @ 229

Did Woodward have some clearance which made it not a crime to disclose Plame to him?

From Armitage? Armitage didn’t know (or at least has convinced Fitz he didn’t know) that Plame was covert.

And Woodward says that Libby didn’t say anything about Plame.

Hi emptywheel,

I was just wondering what your opinion was on the court filing from defense last week that mentioned the possibility of a witness for the prosecution who had immunity. Is it just saying there may be someone with immunity or there is someone with immunity? I am just wondering who it is…Rove maybe??? Curious.

Here is the link of the “snapshot” provided by Black Panther in the “Some Say” thread.

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/b.....munity.jpg

rumi @ 223

Made me wonder: Was the declassification of the NIE ever about getting the ‘whole story out’ in response to Amb Willson’s Op-Ed or was it after-the-fact cover for the classified info leaks?

Were there some irregularities in the timing, as in, Libby leaked and then it was de-classified?

Does anyone have a narrative about this series of evetns that fits the known facts?

neil -

My take on this is that it was all part of a plan to discredit the critics of the prewar information and a way to protect the cherrypicked information that was being used in the public. The classified docs seemed to have both good and bad, but had a more accurate (less convincing) case to go to war. The variety of documents, memos, reports and all had bits and pieces of various ‘big pictures’ such as reference to different facts, meetings and people in sometimes obscure, nonpositive ID ways.

My opinion, based on filings and other is that Libby claimed, or Cheney claimed that the executive order 13292 authorized the declassifications by special exemption and/or it was done by auth of the preznit. From what I saw, Libby doubted the legal footing and was especially cautious but did it anyway. I think when it got to this point in court is when Libby said “You’ll have to ask him…” referring to Cheney and that’s what is bringing the vp in to testify.

I think this link might have it.

emptywheel @ 226

I’d love to talk offline about what you’ve worked on.

But yes, I recently edited a friend’s book which, I think, was accepted at Stanford. And I realized my diss is really close to book form (if I take out all the theory claptrap). So I might try to do that. Though my Czech, in particular, is so rusty, I’d need some help.

My diss was:

Ch. 1: Why everything you’ve learned about Mysteries of Paris is bullshit

Ch. 2: How the feuilleton arose out of the nation-state consent through public state of moderanity (Napoleon 1)

Ch. 3: How the feuilleton spread to places without the same stability of nation-state (Napolon 2 and 3)

Ch. 4: The importance of active reading in teh feuilleton practice

Ch. 5: How the feuilleton works (This chapter is called “Nous est un auteur” playing off of Rimbaud’s Je est un autre, as a commentary on a different kind of modernity than most fuddy duddy literary scholars conceive of it.)

I’m actually a boring lit crit type; I just did a one-off presentation on blogging and some of its historical precedents/parallels my first year in grad school. But your diss sounds great - I know I’d read it - and messing with fuddy duddy notions of modernity is always worthwhile. *g* You should definitely go for it.

Secret Court to govern wiretapsSecret Courts to Govern Wiretaps

New Thread for live blogging the Libby Trial

…due to work conflicts, and the other three because they harbor varying degrees of inability take the administration or its members, such as Vice President Cheney, at their word.

I don’t understand how that could be a disqualifying position to take. If jurors mindlessly took witnesses “at their word” what would be the point in even bothering with selecting a jury or even having a trial? Might as well stop after the initial depositions. Even then, is the judge supposed to take all who were deposed at their word? I think not. That’s precisely why this trial is about perjury and obstruction of justice. The jury’s assignment is to discern what evidence that comes before them is plausible, or true. Their assignment certainly isn’t to mindlessly accept as true everything they hear from every witness they are exposed to.

Greenjeans @ 219

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

GOD YES!!!! THANK YOU Greenjeans!

Jane Hamsher @
38

Pachacutec @ 30

These juror processes are very interesting.

I think we are on to something here, sending a shrink to jury selection. Could start a trend.

It was bloody brilliant!

“Fitz’s suit looks like a dark olive color. The earth toned hippie!”

The shoes, what about the &#%ing shoes?

Holy crap!!

JoyB @
242

Greenjeans @ 219

May I suggest that the courtroom blog be published separately from all the comments. That would permit those of us at work to easily go back and forth to the blog updates.

GOD YES!!!! THANK YOU Greenjeans!

Yes, yes, please!

bogglesthemind @ 244

“Fitz’s suit looks like a dark olive color. The earth toned hippie!”

The shoes, what about the &#%ing shoes?

Holy crap!!

AND the tie. I need info on the tie. LOL!

I just read many of the comments here. There is a carnival like atmosphere prevailing here. That is strange for litigation on a case where an American CIA agent’s identity MAY have been revealed - not by her sworn enemies - but by her own country. And many of these comments make it sound like party time.

Forums have decorum. Message boards, often appear - not to.

It is difficult to believe that someone in a very high government office is EVEN thought of as possibly being involved in this kind of activity.

But it happens. It has happened so often that this country’s ethics is fast approaching a meltdown. As fast as government politicians stepped outside of the law - newspapers(not the New York Times or the Washington Post) tried to make those “dastardly deeds” palatable.

Even the FOLEY activity. A website said something like, “Rural America not moved by Foley Scandal”. An attempt to “reset” America’s values to a much lower level is obvious.

Two news papers