
Here's the halftime score:
We need 36 jurors qualified before we get to peremptory challenges, to allow us a full jury with alternates.
They've reviewed 19 prospective jurors so far, of whom four have been dismissed. One of those was one excused 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. The AP's Matt Apuzzo has more .
That leaves us with 15 of the needed 36 now at the lunchtime break in the niddle of day two of what is scheduled to be three days of jury selection. We will probably take all day tomorrow.
Jump in to the comment thread for any questions you have of me, and once jury selection begins again, I'll be typing notes and updates as fast as I can throughout the afternoon. Oh, and if you appreciate the work we're doing on this and other days, please have a look at Christy's request for an infusion of financial support to cover our costs.
Later on tonight, I'll have a wrap up of the day's events posted here and at the Huffington Post.
UPDATE: One of yesterday's qualified jurors just had to be excused. See details here.
UPDATE II: Word around the courthouse is Cheney will testify in court in person.
UPDATE III: At the end of today's voir dire, we seem to have 24 still in the game, 9 excused. I'll recheck my notes before making my summary later tonight. We need 36 total before we get to the peremptory challenges by either side, to make up a jury with sufficient alternates.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Ah, there may be no time for Q&A. Looks like we’re about to start up again.
One prospective juror from yesterday reported to the judge today her boss is giving her a hard time about her required court appearances. Judge Walton is going to call her boss.
D’oh!
Foul! You can’t get your own Zed!
That’s probation.
Pachacutec @ 2
the dog ate her homework
next up, 50ish white male with a job related to media that makes him aware of news about iraq. Oy.
If everyone who hates Bush and Cheney is bumped by the defense — will there be any jurors left in the pool?
What an outrage!
Is the judge considering that type of dismissal “for cause”? Or is there a limit to the number of potential jurors who can be dismissed for their political views?
After a jury is selected what then will be the first order of business?
Boy, this jury selection process really does highlight the small town nature of DC.
Even people you would not expect to have contacts or familiarity with any of the principles or potential witnesses in this case, or people discussed during testimony, do in fact have some contact somewhere, however tangential.
This last guy was just excused, though. He’s just to close to many of the press people more or less associated with this case.
Meanwhile, the boss of the woman who had trouble with her boss said she won’t get fired but won’t get paid if she’s out. Jury stipend is only $35 per day. She says she wouldn’t mind serving, but has to look at her finances. She has asked to be excused, and the judge has excused her.
She was really very sweet.
Thanks again Pach.
I really appreciate the time and effort.
It is neat to see behind the scenes.
P.S.
If you see Judy skulking about,
give her a Bronx cheer for me.
The next juror is on methadone maintenance and may, on that basis, have difficulty being fully attentive to the proceedings.
Walton: “Counsel approach.”
There goes that one. We’re not doing too well after the lunchtime break. We have fewer jurors than when we started.
The next fellow is a white male retired math teacher. I won’t get into his life specifics, but he’s bene through the wringer with some health and recovery stuff, disease related.
Pachacutec @ 11
Fitz will want him. Math teacher.
Generally, Jeffress seems better at memory questions from the defense checklist, and Wells better at the Iraq and administration questions, but only marginally.
Our friend in the propaganda arm of Team Libby, Barbara Comstock, is in bright red today.
OT:
Isn’t this hackademic.
…and deadpan irony snakebites yet another blinkered ideologue.
Golly gee, D’Souza, using your ’scholarly’ logic,
(using ’scholarly’ in the sense of ‘Look at this fresh gold nugget I pulled out of my ass…The fact that it is a suspicious shade of brown affects its gold-like status not one bit’)
…Prescott Bush, supporting the Nazis financially as he and his family did before and during WWII was the modern state of Israel’s BFF for doing his part to drive so many of the Chosen People out of icky old Germany into the Promised Land, and cull the herd of those weaklings who remained.
Perhaps a posthumous Freedom medal is in order.
Meanwhile, keep putting the ass in assclown, Dinesh.
>:(
Pach, Please tell David Corn that Cornbloggers appreciate his latest blog entry about opposition to Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Our Iraq policy is the most important issue to the American people today, the tin ear and willful stuborness of our President, notwithstanding. Tell him we appreciate his coverage of the topic, and want more of the same. (link to article at www.davidcorn.com )
Pachacutec @ 14
Old Scratch
On each side, how many jury prospects can be refused?
I’m surprised they only found three people who said they couldn’t “take the administration or its members, such as Vice President Cheney, at their word”. I would have thought that group would be better represented.
neil @ 16
He’s not back from lunch. Maybe later if I can catch him.
This witness is another who wants to believe the administration but is becoming leery of the Iraq policy.
Re: Cheney: “I’m not sure I’d want to go bird hunting with him, either.”
Pachacutec @ 22
LMAO!
Pachacutec @ 13
Walton is allowing BOTH of them to question EACH witness? WTF? How ccome I never get judges like that?
Oklahoma Kiddo
per earlier threads -
Defense gets 12
Fitz gets 6
Oklahoma kiddo @
7
Opening statements, and the govt will put on its case, motions to dismiss by the defense, followed by the defense case, arguments, instructions to the jury, motions, verdict.
ROFL!! He said at the end of his questioning, to Walton, “I have pictures of my grandchildren if you want to see them.”
This guy was a totla southern charmer. He had a great quote about his wife, too, after describing all the hip and joint replacements she’s had, he said, “She has a lot of bad joints, but she has a heart of pure gold.”
He charmed everyone.
looseheadprop @ 25
No, just one or the other.
Pach-Do you think some of the potential jurors are afraid to serve on this trial because of the nasty reputation of Team Bush?
How funny is this. Pach, you are blessed!
Chady @ 29
Not necessarily, but a couple of people with executive branch jobs seemed very circumspect about conveying their opinions of the administration, one way or the other.
looseheadprop @ 25
looseheadprop, you and I must not have lived right.
Pach, Is Nina Totenberg there? I would drink her bath water….
It is going to be really hard for the defense to have 12 jurors to be on Libby’s corner when, so far, the words: Iraq, Dick Cheney, or President Bush is mentioned in the potential jurors’ questions and just irritate most of them. This trial is simply the worse timing for Libby and his team since the Bush has a Baskin Robbins Presidency, and gotten negative responses by the American people from his speech and 60 minutes interview last week and now his interview with Lehrer last night on PBS.
No Nina.
Pachacutec @
27
LOL. Sounds like a foreman-to-be, if he isn’t struck.
Thanks for the play-by-play commentary.
The next 60ish African American woman is now being questioned by Wells. I think he’s trying to get her struck, since she says she does not think the administration was forthright in its case for war, though she says she can and would be fair base don evidence if administration officials testify, such as Cheney.
uwyoalum @ 33
Before she took the bath, hopefully.
Oh my. Wells is doing his down country shuck and jive voice and it sounds like tin, to me.
Did you mean lunchtime break in the nibble of day two?
Jeebus, Wells is arguing his case with rather wide latitude here in voir dire, relative to memory and how to decide if someone’s memory is mistaken or if someone is lying. He always wants another bite at the apple after Fitz asks his standard question about how a juror would figure out if someone had a bad memory of if they were lying.
Pach at 22 — Bwahahahahahahaha!
SP Biloxi @
34
a what?
A question for the legal experts - would, or do, lawyers ever make it onto juries?
Sparkles at 44 — I never have. SIGH But I have had a lawyer on one of my prior juries which, I am happy to say, found in my client’s favor in a civil trial.
Well, this 50’s white female was just excused quickly for the now familiar reason. She does not feel she could believe administration members on an equal footing with others.
Pachacutec @ 41
Please do tell, when you have a moment, what sort of answers meet this query. Seems it could be a difficult thing to ponder off the cuff.
HotFlash @ 43
31 Flavors - 31% approval rating. At least, I think that’s what it means.
People usually talk about some variation of hearing all the testimony and available evidence before making a decision.
Scarecrow @ 55
Busted! I guess it was sooo constitutional they just couldn’t do it anymore.
I am surprised that Cheney hasn’t taken Libby on a hunting trip by now.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 44
Yes, because I was on one, once. It even related to some pro bono work I do (domestic violence). I was stunned.
Pachacutec @ 39
Ordinarily,Wells sounds rather patrician
hackworth @ 47
Indeed. I would answer, “I would try to see if they had a motive to lie.” Which would probably get me kicked out of this pool….
Attorney General Gonzales just announced that Bush will not reauthorize the warrantless surveillance program.
Just like that
Looks like they’ve been watching all the jurors explain how they could never trust anything the Bush people said.
looseheadprop @ 53
Yes, that’s my point.
My guess is that the 60ish black woman with war motivation questions will get the hook. Can you tell if she is still in play?
Scarecrow @ 55
The Warner / MCA bill? allows for other people to authorize actions, iirc. I don’t trust this statement.
AZ Matt @ 51
what? so he could shoot him and have him not have to go through the whole trial?
hackworth @ 57
She’s still in play. She was clear that she believed she could give everyone an equal assessment and deal with the evidence.
j.cro @ 59
That thought did cross my mind.
Scarecrow @ 55
He won’t “reauthorize” it, they’ll just do it unauthorized. Then 3 months from now we’ll find it reauthorized in a tiny footnote to the Patriot Act that was appended at 3 a.m. by Joe Lieberman.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 58
According to the report, Gonzales said this surveillance would be done under the FISA Court.
AZ Matt @ 61
I’m snickering right along with you.
I think this next guy may get through ok, but we’re not done yet. Here comes the Fitz memory follow up question after Jeffress.
darkblack @ 15
That was good!
Can someone succintly tell me why Fitz did not go the criminal conspiracy route versus the perjury, obstruction trail?…
It would be greatly appreciated…
Canadianhoser
This one is still in, no excuse for cause.
Canadianhoser @ 67
Insufficient evidence. Needs Libby’s full and true testimony.
j.cro @ 64
With the Bush Administration I am just very cynical. Guess they wouldn’t want me on the jury for this trial.
hackworth @ 47
I’d tell them I usually go with my gut, I look ‘em in the eye and check out their body language, then I do whatever I was gonna do anyway and made up some story supporting it, and I’m right every time too. - W
Pachacutec @ 68
Could you tell us a bit more about this one?
Pach you are an absolute hero — you do FDL proud. Hope the TradMed folks are enjoying their ‘lake visit; y’all won’t find a better voir dire liveblogger than our lad Pach!
The Bushes always figured that Hitler had the wrong idea- just implemented it in a taseteless manner.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 62. Touche.
You wouldn’t be here otherwise, correct? For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t be picked either.
o/t
http://www.rawstory.com/showar.....270957.stm
Top Iraqi condemns US over Iran
that would be this Top Iraqi Official
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123.....jpg?size=l
oh crap, MSRNC - Sen Clinton using words like “cap” as I type . . .
*xyz @ 72
Trying not to let to much out that might get to identity, per court orders, but 50’s white male, pretty mellow guy, has a person close to him who is involved as an officer of the courts, but takes from this that the process is very important and he must be fair and open to evidence.
If Cheney is called, for Libby, will he have to appear in person?…
Do we know if & when Cheney has been deposed?…and if that record exists publically?….
Thanx for the concise answer Pach….stellar work dewd, but it sure sounds like fun and not work, cept in a faintly Gallic way
j. cro & AZMatt:
less margin-busting ziggurat-creating quoting, please?
Good stuff Pach. Mucho gracias.
Was gonna make smart commment yesterday AM about those fingers…
“I got BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!” [tadum/crash!] off the ‘White Album’…;~>
—
OFFtopic:
Anyway, just called Congressman Neal’s (D-MA-02) office locally. Registered doubts, objections protestations and plan(0$) about the ME. Staff reassured my that I’d be pleasantly surpized on the floor Thurs/Fri.
I have hope.
Also got a guage on calls. We’re not alone.
Word here in the prss room is people expect Cheney to testify in person, on site.
Any word on whether Condi or Judy Judy Miller will testify in person?
Speaking for myself, I would be wary of the charmer Pach describes. But, that’s personal.
Pachacutec @ 78
Thanks. That is very helpful. I completely understand and appreciate that you must act to preserve anonymity of the potential jurors at all times.
Canadianhoser @ 79
The piece de resistance would be Jabba the Chainy getting sliced and diced by the Fitz on the stand.
Malkin is back, posing on a sheetless bed, asking “How ’bout it, boys?”
Thought you would want to know. :)
Sparkles the Iguana @ 62
Exactly! OR Spector will do Bush’s bidding AGAIN…
Richmond at 83 — Judy Miller will almost certainly testify in person, as will Condi if she’s actually called. Cheney represents a whole higher level of security planning, though,which was why there has been a lot of speculation that he would testify via remote previously. Very interesting that he may testify publicly instead — says to me that Team Libby is calculating the need for some Veep gravitas (Cheney, for all his many faults, is very persuasive and commanding in public) which would not translate as well over a video monitor. Very interesting indeed.
Wonder if that is coming from the impressions they are already getting via jury selection? Hmmmmmm…
Pachacutec @ 82
Woohoo! That’s surprising, actually. I hope the press is guessing this one right. I sorely want to see the matching of wits between him and Fitz.
Hey, are they allowing cameras in the courtroom during the trial?
Pachacutec @ 82
Damn, Pach. Perhaps we could all chip in and get you some kevlar?
Guess warrantless spying programs are only effective under a gooper congress.
When ya got a gooper congress, they’re ESSENTIAL to national security- when ya lose the congress- they really aren’t that important.
Pachacutec @ 82
darth testify
Fitz watching this juror being questioned by Wells, 40’s white female. He has his hand on his chin, looking up.
A-MEN !
yes, yes, as once they are invited in, garlic and crucifixes aren’t worth a crap !
Thanks Christy! My word, this is amazing! Not just that Pach is there, but also that so many others CHS and LHP etc etc are commenting on our inquiries too. What a difference from the one point of view talking head NPR or MSM reporting, after the event on radio or tv, with no real means of listener engagement. As with the last election (which broke my computer, I swear, this is a new era indeed.
j.cro @ 76
elegantly de-zigged.
tryggth at 87 — Good lord, are you trying to make me lose my lunch?
She wants a couple of more battalions for Afghanistan, cap troops as of January 1 and 6 month conditions on Iraq for making positive steps towards revenue sharing, death squads, which, if not met would require re-authorization of the war.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 98
I’m scared sheetless.
Caperman-
That would be Hill not Malkin, I presume.
I guess I should already know this, & sorry if it’s been addressed already (really!), but isn’t it pre-qualifying the jury in the defense’s favor if the jurors all have to say Cheney is “credible” or (sheesh) “trustworthy”?
“Cheney’s credibility has emerged as a key issue, with defense lawyers looking for a panel that can trust the vice president, expected to testify on behalf of Libby, his former chief of staff.” http://news.bostonherald.com/p.....eid=177643
SharonW @ 90
I remember the Cheney/Edwards debate.
Edwards had to backtrack and correct Cheney’s false assertions before he could rebut them. It was exhausting.
Even though Edwards was right, he got tired and was overwhelmed by Cheney’s unflappable demeanor and unending rhetoric.
Maybe Cheney will tell Fitz that he never met him (Fitz). This little trick throws an opponent off balance.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 93
I’ve been hearing this for some time.
This next woman is a scientist, of rather notable accomplishment and education, who does not seem to esteem administration politics, but her commitment to getting evidence, the scientific method, leads her to say she can and will be fair. Wells is trying to get her to say something to prompt her to say something so she is struck for cause, bias. He’s working it, and he’s had some success with this before.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 89
Re Cheney live (is that an oxymoron?) - Libby’s attorneys are thinking “The odds are good” that he’ll provide gravitas. My sense is that Cheney’s goods are odd…..