Tweet
We're at Day Three, which should be the final day, of jury selection. We may run late into the afternoon, but Judge Walton seems committed to get it done.
We have 24 in the potential juror pool so far. 9 have been excused. We need to get to 36 acceptable potential jurors, then then we'll get to both sides' peremptory challenges. I don't have this solid, but what I gather is the prosecution holds 6 peremptory strikes and then 2 more for potential alternates, while the defense holds 10 strikes with an additional two for alternates. That makes for a total of 20 strikes to come from the eventual availble pool of 36 to be completed, leaving 12 jurors and 4 alternates. Got that? Now if a train is moving west toward Memphis at forty-five miles per hour in the rain. . .
If you want a flavor of the very interesting personalities coming to life during the vior dire process, be sure to follow the links I put up in my post last night, to which I'll add this one from David Corn.
Anecdotally, the racial makeup of the jury pool that responded to the call for jurors was mostly white. I did not see the whole assemblage of about 60 people, but one witness said it looked roughly to be two-thirds white. Our current 24 elegible jurors, as we begin selection Thursday, falls out in this way, by my count: 15 women, 9 men. Of the women, 12 appear to be white and 3 appear to be African American. Of the men, 7 appear to be white, one Middle Eastern and one appears to be African American. Of those already excused, I may have missed one in my notes, but I believe 5 were white, 2 African American and 1 Latina.
And now we begin today's live blogging of jury selection. Welcome back!
247 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
First potential juror this morning is a 20’s (?) white female who has some fairly informed information about the Plame leak story, and she appears nervous with whole process. She seems sweet; her voice is quavering.
Fitz did not have much to ask of her. Wells is up. She’s a professional person; and she may be around 30 years of age; I dare not guess!
This age guessing is not easy, especially on closed circuit TV.
Paraphrase, my quick notes from this juror under Wells’ query:
Iraq/credibility: mixed feelings on whether people were lied to, complex reasons behind what happened, “war was a tremendous terrible mistake, whether there is any one person responsible for that is a more complex question.”
He’s doing his thing now to draw her out to get her disqualified.
This is becoming a familiar dynamic. Wells is very skilled at this in drawing out a statement of mistrust of Cheney for those who feel strongly about the war and the case made for war. She just gave him the magic answer, to the effect that she would have more doubt of Cheney if his testimony were inconsistent with what someone else says.
Interesting that Wells is continuing to ask her questions about her ability to take her outside opinions out of her credibility assessments, even though she seems to have given him what he needed as of yesterday to have her dumped for cause.
I wonder if Fitzgerald mad an argument since last night that changed the yardstick a little bit.
Now Judge Walton is asking her some more questions about her ability to stick to the evidence and instructions by the Judge, and she’s giving him the right answers.
Something feels different today. I think Fitz may have gotten some favorable adjustment from the Judge since last night. He’s asking some new questions that allow her to state she would stick to matters before the court, related to the law, independent of her feelings about the war.
Pach
A great question was asked on the Waiting Room thread by Pat_AlexVA. Paraphrasing and extending:
Has anyone with a security clearance been part of the questioning yet? Have they gotten through? How have the lawyers handled it?
Good question: answer is yes, a few. The questions then relate to preconceptions about the handling of classified material and if those beliefs might prejudice beyond the evidence. Also, people are asked about their CIA familiarity and about designations of cover, preconceptions, biases, etc.
There’s a lenghty sidebar going on now about this juror, no doubt over whether to strike for cause. My impression is yesterday she would have been easy toast. I think Fitzgerals has argued that defense has been able to lead jurors to say things about their strong impressions and feelings without ample opportunity to express their ability to follow the Judge’s instructions about evidence and what is material for deliberation. That’s just a guess, but by the way this is unfolding, I think the Judge is considering or perhaps has made some adjustments.
Someone is taking copious notes somewhere for the eventual inevitable appeal.
Is anyone with a criminal record automatically excluded (with cause) from a jury in the Federal system?
FITZ!
Why all this focus on Cheney? I thought his (possible) involvement was with the leak, not the perjury. Does Cheney have some blockbuster alibi hidden up his sleeve? I can’t keep all of this straight.
We’re still in sidebar with the microphone off. Judge Walton is addressing Fitz, Wells is listening.
CHS: I would like to know that we readers have put up enough money to handle the financial issues. Please let us know if more is needed to provide a good financial cushion, so you and Jane do not have to worry about it. Thanks.
oxide @ 10
Cheney will make testimony Sccoter needs that will be contradicted by other witnesses. The defense wants to be sure there are no jurors who would not believe Cheney if he said it was raining and they were all wet, based on the case made for war.
It’s quite telling that this sampling of Americans simply don’t like and don’t believe the Vice President of the US.
-GSD
oxide @ 10
He’s going to be a witness. The defense can bounce any potential jurors who say they don’t believe a word the man says.
Have any of the potential jurors brought up the fact that Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face?
It’s also telling that the Republicans and Bush apologists all want to have the best defense money can buy at their beck and call when they are in legal trouble but seem more than willing to rescind that privelige for those whom they determine unworthy of such basic rights.
-GSD
Pach, I’m not surprised that there are people who can’t believe a word this administration says. But I am surprised that there are so many of them and they don’t mind expressing themselves. It would almost give me hope except for the nagging feeling I have that these jurors are trying to get themselves disqualified. What is your thin-slice telling you?
Now Wells is speaking to Walton. We’re now ten minutes plus in sidebar.
Now we’re back. Here in the prss room, not everyone has heard her to make a statement, in their view, that would clearly have dumped her yesterday, so she may be just very close to the line. Perhaps the standard has not moved or become more elastic on this stuff since yesterday. Now Judge Walton is trying to pin her down, “Is there any potential that those feelings you have in any way coul spill over into this cse and cause you to render a decision that is not based on the evidence?
Walton asking more questions about her ability to take Cheney as she would any other witness, and checking for adherence to reasonable doubt standard no matter what her feelings about the war.
She gave all the right answers to stay in. Welss is not taking another shot at her.
Capeman at 9 asks, “Is anyone with a criminal record automatically excluded (with cause) from a jury in the Federal system?“
I’m not fully sure how that works, and I suspect it may differ from state to state (as with restoration of voting rights for convicted felons). For the state of Virginia, a felon must petition for restoration of voting rights (clemency granted by the Governor’s office). In Virginia, this clemency also includes the right to serve on a jury. DC automatically restores voting rights after one’s sentence is complete, so I don’t know how they are for jury duty…
Clear as mud?
Wow: Wells just asked her if she gave a truthful answer, since she said in asnwer to one questions, “it would be difficult.” She’s now talking about the challenge of being subconsciously influenced. Wells asking if there is “some potential” she could be influenced by preconception.
“I don’t think so. I would make every sincere effort.”
Self aware people should not be jurors.
She now said “I think they could,” re: could her subconscious feelings potentially bleed over into her assessment process.
Now we’re in another sidebar.
Thank you all, but I’m sorry, I didn’t phrase my Q right. I mean, I know Cheney will be a witness, but I thought that this case was about Libby saying he learned about Plame as hearsay from other reporters (Russert), when he really learned it from [Cheney/Armitage/whoever]. That’s the perjury. I don’t see how Cheney’s testimoney is going to defend that, unless he throws himself or Armitage(?) under the bus. Or maybe Cheney will only be used to defend the obstruction charge…this makes my head spin.
Sorry to clog up the thread. Pach, we need you to blog, not answer my stupid q’s. :-( :-)
With Cheney’s approval rating at 19% they are going to have to start taking people who don’t like him.
It’s BS that being against the war would get you kicked off, since 2/3 of the US is against it. The remaining 1/3, you could argue, are the ones pre-disposed to believe something against all evidence… I hope they made some adjustments.
She’s been excused. Wells got her, since she said there is a potential these feelings could influence her, even in spite of her best conscious efforts to be fair and stick stricly to the evidence.
We now have the “there is potential” standard, if you admit the theoretical possibility of subconscious influence of preexisting bias.
Pach The NYT piece on the case this morning suggested that Wells was able to get a couple of people in the jury pool who had security-linked jobs. My sense of this was that the article was giving a pro-Wells & Libby slant to the selection process so far. What is your take.
Also, how is it possible that there are so few blacks in the D.C. jury pool?
Pachacutec @
26
Seems to me that means a LOT of jurors are going to be dismissed. Doesn’t everyone suffer from such potentials?
I haven’t seen the NYT piece. Linky?
We’re in sidebar again. Jeebus. We’re off to a slooooow start today.
Fitzgerald’s team better start being aggressive. According to Corn’s article – a couple people got through who should have been dismissed for pro-administration bias.
annx @ 30
The pool is not yet set. Both sides still can strike jury members.
To quote Atticus Finch, “It’s not time to worry yet.”
On the NYT’s link: I think you have to be a subscriber, but maybe someone else here knows another way to link this article.
That’s what the peremptory challenges are for.
I like that Atticus Finch is “in” the courtroom (31).
NY Times link … is this it?nytimes
Can Fitz bounce Cheney as a witness for being unbelievable? It seems only fair.
Amazing that they can’t find 36 people in DC that might consider Cheney capable of truth.
OT – Raw has up that there are rumors that Iran missiles hit a U.S. military vessel in the gulf. Anon source says it is not true. –This seems framed as “he said/she said” for now, but really scary (and sadly not unexpected) even in the rumor mill category.
DCDAN @
36
I suspect we may be hearing a lot of this in the trial:
Wells: Objection, your honor!
Fitz: Goes to credibility, your honor.
It the complete post-modern trial: Do you suppose that there were sub-conscious influences involved in Libby’s alleged forgetting? If so should he be held responsible for these influences?
I find it hard to believe that any random method of selecting jurors in Washington DC could come up with a jury pool that is two thirds white. Comparing this jury pool to the demographics of Washington DC, something doesn’t compute. Or maybe all the potential black jurors are eliminated in advance due to being incarcerated or convicted felons. Maybe someone could suggest some explanation for such a surprising jury pool racial makeup.
Sounds as if scoot’s attorneys are using the fact that Cheney will testify to dismiss dems and leave goopers in the pool. They should be able to get to a much goopier final jury in this manner. They may not really give a shit much about the Cheney issue per se- as it is not likely to be the thing that the defense rests on.
The next one is a 40’s white woman with a clearance, with a higher level departmental job at DHS. Since she’s been around and related to some internal investigation of procurement fraud, I think she’s in Wells’ crosshairs. They don’t want people who have had law enforcement or enforcement related experiences.
theExile @ 40
I find it hard to believe that any random method of selecting jurors in Washington DC could come up with a jury pool that is two thirds white. Comparing this jury pool to the demographics of Washington DC, something doesn’t compute. Or maybe all the potential black jurors are eliminated in advance due to being incarcerated or convicted felons. Maybe someone could suggest some explanation for such a surprising jury pool racial makeup.
There are a hell of a lot of great citizen black women who live in D.C. and work in the government. Where are they on this list??
If we are known by the company we keep, it’s Libby’s turn to pay the piper for keeping company with the hateful and unreliable Cheney.
Feinstein now questioning Gonzalez.
He won’t even say how many US Attorneys were asked to resign.
Pach – Are all the credibility questions limited to Cheney?
The teevee reported yesterday that Condi and Colin Powell are also on the D’s witness list.
Any questions there?
Pach @31
Yeah, but the thing I worry about is that if the pool is *already* slanted toward the admin before premptories, it will only be more slanted after as Team Libby has a 2:1 advantage over Fitz with the objections.
Boy, it does seem that Federal courts go out of their way to give the defense ample advantage in jury selection. Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you. It just sucks when the gov’t itself is on trial.
The other thing I wonder about re: being excused for cause, is that I take it PatFitz probably thinks it’s irrelevant as to the potential juror’s view on the war or the admin, because he personally believes this is all about Libby’s credibility and his lies, where Wells, et al’s case will depend on trying to appeal to the few kool-aid drinkers on the jury to nullify any verdict, irrespective of any clear and compelling evidence of Libby’s lies.
capeman @ 45
LOL — are we now mixing the trial and the hearing going on in the Senate today?
Pach @ 42
This may be very true. I have been in several jury pools but have never been selected. I asked a lawyer friend why and he said it was because I was a government official involved in acquisition and procurement matters.
Jeffress is working through this woman’s knowldege of the case due to press exposure. She has some pretty decent familiarity with the outlines of the case. Fishing for inadmissable bias to the jury pool.
rwcole @ 41
AH HA! A flash! What if the purpose of having Cheney called as a witness was to SCEW THE JURY POOL?
jayt @ 46
Also related to press, specifically Russert, and to a lesser degree, Andrea Mitchell. Not Condi or Powell, really.
I still think Cheney may refuse to testify.
lhp–brilliant, on the pool.
The NYT link is accurate, basic, solid. Neil Lewis is also here in the room.
bg @ 54
If I’m right. And I have no idea if I am. That is pretty fickin’ clever. Wells earned his hourly rate with that.
Pach- Who seems to do a better job of putting the potential jurors at ease (Fitz or Wells & team)? Who do seem most comfortable being questioned by?
looseheadprop, rwcole — BINGO!!
He doesn’t even have to testify, hence all the flip-flopping about the nature of his appearance (on video, other site, at the courthouse…).
Cheney only has to lend his name to the witness list to mess with the jury pool. That’s the defense team’s game.
But obviously Fitz must have something going on here with Cheney anyhow, and the facts must be compelling on their own, or he’d have had to make some sort of adjustments.
Don’t you think?
Jeffress is doing well, but taking long, in walking this woman to an expression of potential bias, but so far she’s only copping to bias about politicians in general. Now he’s moving from Cheney to Libby.
Sorry for typo.
viget @ 47
I may be mistaken, but isn’t jury nullification when they decide to ignore the law (e.g. because they feel it is unjust) and thus something that would likely require more than just a few kool-aid drinkers?
Or were you meaning they would “hang” the jury which (again, AFAIK) means preventing them from reaching a conclusion?
I ask because I’ve seen a number of people in the past few days talk about nullification as if it meant “preventing them from rendering a verdict,” while I’ve never heard it used that way before.
–MarkusQ
I wish people could see this, particularly in the context of all the previous questioning of other potential jurors. Jeffress has not quite, perhaps, gotten what he need. . . yet. . . to have her stricken for cause. Walton is trying to cut through any potential bias against politicians as a class, their testimony. She answered “right,” and Jeffress gave up.
Fitzy really wants her.
Looseheadprlooseheadprop @ 56
Looseheadprop, that would also explain the filing that no special security measures were asked for re: Cheney’s testimony, would it not?
Pachacutec, thank you again for doing such a tremendous job.
-S
looseheadprop @
56
Opinions about Cheney are going to be at the center of this case regardless of whether he testifies or not. Scooter was his Chief of Staff, and if you don’t like/won’t believe Big Time, then you won’t like/won’t believe his COS.
Cheney’s the lightning rod.
MarkusQ @ 61
Well if they basically believe Libby lied, and he was right to do so, for the sake of the GWoT, then it would be nullification, as I understand it.
We’re back in sidebar. Lots of argument now over whether to keep this woman.
Pachacutec @ 66
Has the press room started a pool on the number of sidebars before this is done?
Rayne @ 58
The important thing is whether Walton realizes it. Since he’s on the bench, I don’t think he is lurking here.
Opps, we’re back, and Walton is questioning her some more. Asking about how skeptical she is of people who are or who work for politicians versus those who do not.
Yes, more skepticism.
Would you hold the governemnt to a lesser standard of establishing guilt based on your skepticism?
No.
Can you expliain why you would have this added level of skepticism?
Politician trying to persuade public, more complex motovations than non-politicians, Just as people in advertising, people focus more on some elements of their product than others. Politicians actions rflect certain motivations in order to persuade the public
. . . Walton still asking questions. . .
Maybe Fitz needs the pool to have a clear number of people he knows that Wells will need to use his pre-empts on.
In this case, likely jury nullification could occur if the jury decides that Fitz was investigating Libby for something that wasn’t illegal anyway- and then took him down on a technicality.. that’s why they need people who see the world through the eyes of goopers- goopers DO see it that way!
I don’t think that the lawyers can make the point that “there was no underlying crime” but a “well informed” gooper can put that before the jury. It’s their best hope.
looseheadprop @ 68
Possible, certainly. But it’s also possible Fitz has a CIA briefer who will testify about telling Cheney about Plame, contradicting Cheney.
Well if they basically believe Libby lied, and he was right to do so, for the sake of the GWoT, then it would be nullification, as I understand it.
That’s pretty much it. Jury nullification is where a jury recognizes that a defendant did in fact commit the act(s) complained of, implicitly acknowledge that those acts were techinally illegal, and find the defendant Not Guilty anyway.
Pach–
Has Fitzgerald ever really gone after any potential jurors the way that Team Libby has that he think might be biased towards the defense? Has he initiated sidebars to try to get any particular juror excused? It really seems to me like he’s losing the strategy game here in that a number of potential jurors that may have been very pro-prosecution have been excused, while there was at least one juror who seemed GoOper who was seated yesterday.
MarkusQ @ 61
Jury nullification is when the jury refuses to follow the jury charge and refuses to convict because of some collateral reason. Can be they don’t like the law, they have sympathy for the defendant, whatever. I had a case like that. Years later, I’m talking to the judge from that case and he says that the defendant’s were so clearly guilty nd that he was astounded by the N/G verdict.
I almost fell on th efloor.
looseheadprop @
56
Wheels within wheels. And they don’t even have to call him if they don’t want to, do they?
(head shake) lhp, is this a serious possibility or are we getting too ingrown on this?
Strategerie @ 63
No, that filing pre dated Team Libby putting him on their list
Some general questions on the trial: A witnesses criminal history is fair game, isn’t it? Doesn’t Cheney have a couple DUIs?
It’s a shame Fitz doesn’t do fishing expeditions. I think his two final questions should be:
1. In the past year, have you shot any old men in the face?
2. I see. And did you consume any alcoholic beverages in the 12 hours prior to shooting the old man in the face?
As perjury traps go, that one seems much better than lying about blowjobs.
We’re going around and around with this woman.
Would the government have a lower standard to prove its case involving poloticians?
No.
Fitz: brings up the distinction between testimony under oath versus public statements by pols.
She’s given the right answers to stay in. Walton asking a follow up making it specific to Libby: she says same presumption for Libby as anyone else, no lesser burden for government because he works for a politician?
Oy. Another sidebar.
viget @ 74
No, he has not gone after with such focus and intent.
theExile @ 40
citizens of the District get called for jury duty constantly (Pach can probably attest to this). It may be that most folks know that there is virtually no follow up to tossing your jury summons in the trash.
just a guess.
viget @ 74
No, I wouldn’ necessariy say he is losing the “game” so much as he is not PLAYING the game. He is looking for people who believe they can be open minded.
Remember, unlike Libby, Fitz HAS A CASE
OT – FACT CHECK: Bush Has Cut Funding For Cancer Research
HotFlash @ 76
Possible. But not entirely likely.
looseheadprop @ 51
won’t they just ask for a change of venue, thus causing more delay and getting scooter closer to Christmas 2008?
looseheadprop @ 81
Damn – those shiny objects keep getting in the way. Thanks for the reminder!
From today’s NYT synopsis:
Wow….Fitz surely will axe this harpy.
So should Fitz’s question be “Would you give greater weight to the testimony of Cheney because he is VP?”
I wonder if Team Libby putting Cheney on their list solely for the purposes of influencing jury selection is too clever by half.
It sounded like Wells was genuinely surprised when Fitzgerald announced that he wasn’t going to call Cheney. Which would suggest to me that they would have assumed that Fitz might have already considered the jury selection angle, and decided against Cheney for this very reason?
In other words, Team Libby might be worried that Fitz was already onto this, had a strategy to counteract it, PLUS now has the extra latitude of conducting cross on Cheney instead of having to examine him on direct.
I’m not suggesting that this is the case, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if Fitz never even gave the whole “Cheney-as-influencing-the-jury-pool” tactic a second thought, seeing as he has a reputation for being rather cavalier about voir dire. But hey, if it throws the defense off-guard, so much the better.
We’re still in sidebar. Oponion seems split in the press room as to whether she will stay in or not. Even if she stays, I can’t imagine the defense won’t use a peremptory on her.
Walton just excused her. There we go.
24 in, 11 excused. Not a promising start to the day.
I think we may be here tomorrow.
We’re in a 10 minute recess.
twolf1 @ 82
Wait till Jane finds out. Poor Shrub. I don’t think he realized how poor his timing is. She’s gonna be mad at him.
Damn Walton .. give the prosecution a chance, at least.
lina @ 84
IIRC, and I;m not sure I do. I think they did ask for a change of venue long ago and got turned down
J. Thomason @ 87
Given tha WAlton is allowing the questions along the opposite line, it would be an entirely appropriate question for him to ask. I don’t know if he would though.
Pach — Awesome job today, as usual. :) This is so intriguing, watching jury selection through someone else’s eyes. It’s a whole new window on the process for me, getting the psych perspective — and finding it to be so similar to the one that I used (without the psych background) when selecting juries. Fascinating stuff.
It’s always pretty easy to keep from getting picked for a jury if you don’t want to serve- and this Cheney thing is the perfect vehicle- “No I don’t believe a thing he says” and BOOM_ yer out of there.
Some of these people would be finding another road out if this one wasn’t offered I suspect. They HAVE to know that if they say they have a resistance to believing Cheney they’ll get excused.
Peterr@64
If the justice system wasn’t limping on life support and almost killed off in what used to be the land of the free, Cheney wouldn’t be the lightning rod. He would be the defendent on a charge of treason, war profiteering, war crimes and just generally being an asshole that shouldn’t take up space in the free world.
Do Assholes take up space?
Thought puzzle for the day!
rwcole @ 96
Except, neither do they want to lie. Frankly, the man’s reputation for credibilty is shit.
The whole process does seem well designed to exclude the informed and self-aware.
[Mod Note; RW, today ain’t the day for that stuff, OK?]
rwcole @ 99
No, they are ciphers, but they sure fill up the joint.
Oops.
Pachacutec @ 100
well certainly the informed. Where is EPU when a defense perspective is needed? Come back to us Oh great parallel one!
From a prosecution standpoint, I have heard defense counsel argue for change of venue that made it sound that the only good juror is a juror who never heard of the case or anyone in it. I once heard a judge respond that they had not yet built a federal courtroom on Mars, so we were just going to have to muddl ethrough with a jury that lives on this planet.
Regarding racial make-up of jury, in Penna. they use combo of voter registration list and driver license list. If DC is similiar, not voting plus not owning car/relying on public transportation could skew the potential jurors away from lower income (which in DC correlates with minority status).
Also rwcole at #97 is right. Not sure if we should read too much into the jurors getting bounced. This will be a months-long trial; anyone with half-a-life will do everything he can to keep from getting selected.
won’t they just ask for a change of venue, thus causing more delay and getting scooter closer to Christmas 2008?
IIRC, and I;m not sure I do. I think they did ask for a change of venue long ago and got turned down
but light of the new information, i.e., not being able to seat a jury BECAUSE EVERYONE IN DC THINKS THE BUSHIES ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS (sorry I just had to do that in all caps) — maybe they can file a new motion (?)
I think we’re getting ready to start up again. . .
More likely a ground for appeal.
Gotta get ready to go visit a city councilman..Keep em honest!!
Hey! all this ziggurat stuff is taking its toll.
“More likely a ground for appeal.”
and a valid one – it would seem.
Please, folks, watch the quoting of comments. We really don’t have the time to constantly go back and reformat everyone’s comments today and liveblog and moderate and keep up with Jane’s progress, okay? Thanks. No more than two nested quotes in a comment, or you blow the margins. Just a friendly reminder.
Fitz making an argument that says some jurors are getting an argument that this case is about politics from defense vior dire questioning while others are not. He says this is an uneven vior dire process and not what the Judge intended. Seems like a statememt in court for the record, as we had no discussion of it, and now we have a new juror for review: 40ish white male.
That was quick. Another excused: friend of a friend of the Wilsons with very strong negative feelings about the administration and against the war. Says he does not feel he could be objective. Buh-bye.
We’re 0 for 3 today. Oy.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 87
Isn’t Jim Comey Lockheed’s head lawyer? And, when he got that job, weren’t there a lot of questions related to the various Cheney/Lockheed connections?
I remember hearing about one civil (anti-trust) trial where the judge did everything he could to make sure the jury knew as little as possible about the field the case was in. The jury still found for the plaintiff, and the judge threw the verdict out. (The plaintiff won the case on appeal.)
Rosie @ 115
When asked, she stated she did not know Lockheed General Counsel.
jury nullification:
In a medical marijuana case in federal court in CA, that would happen when a juror voted against conviction desite clear evidence of guilt because he/she believes in federalism and that Californians enacted a proposition to allow the use of marijuana by those with cancer, AIDS, etc.
Next up, 30’s white female.
re: Pach @ 114
So what’s the significance of that? Can the gov’t appeal a “not guilty” verdict because they believe the jury selection process was biased? Wouldn’t they more likely move for a mistrial?
Pachacutec @ 26
with this sort of potential for excusing a potential juror, plus the proven record of this administration for playing hardball retaliating nastily agnst anyone & everyone they feel threatens their “agenda”, what are the chances a potential juror could be excused by the judge simply out of queasiness over possibilities goons might successfully threaten the person?
What I’m after is whether there’s a possibility teamlibby could play it real close to the line & get someone disqualified by having judge infer the person might be intimidated, without teamlibby actually coming out with overt threat. Surely this is possible; but would the judge spot it & hammer them for it, or would he let it go unless said intimidation was blatant?
(- sorry so badly worded – hope you can get the gist in spite of my inept “skills”.)
looseheadprop @ 104
Sorry, good questions, can’t touch them at the moment.
Unfortunately the administration of personal responsibility, doesn’t seem willing to accept the consequences of lying your face off for years. The consequences of which are naturally a loss of credibility.
Jurors shouldn’t have to swear that they consider any potential witness credible. Their duty is to be willing to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses when they give their evidence. If two witnesses stories don’t agree, then the juror has to make a judgement as to which witness (or witnesses) he/she finds credible.
It would be difficult for any conscious human who hasn’t spent the last decade in a spider hole next to Saddam’s to be unaware that Cheney and others in this administration of corruption might be considered credibility challenged.
Pachacutec @
115
I feel for you, but I’m glad it’s being done right.
Fitz is doing more up front with this witness to ask jurors about their ability to disregard any feelings they may have about the war. He’s doing preemptive work against the Libby Team line of voir dire. He seems a bit pissed off, actually. Terse is perhaps the right word.
Christy @ 112 –
reposting from earlier . . .
Given the expected traffic here during the Libby trial, a few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers might be in order. FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
To make newcomers feel a bit more at ease, here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
Now Wells is working on this juror. It’s actually through the defense questioning we learn more about these people, since they are doing a lot of digging, even, to a degree, fishing.
Pachacutec @ 91
According to the schedule, Walton is booked solid tomorrow. Jury selection may spill over to next week.
Again, thanks, Pach for the blogging. As a former lawyer/psychologist, I find your comments particularly interesting. I’ve asked my “pre-law” students to write a review of your notes.
lina @ 106
IIRC, and I;m not sure I do. I think they did ask for a change of venue long ago and got turned down
but light of the new information, i.e., not being able to seat a jury BECAUSE EVERYONE IN DC THINKS THE BUSHIES ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS (sorry I just had to do that in all caps) — maybe they can file a new motion (?)
The could file, but I don’t think it will succeed based on events thus far
viget @ 120
Gov’t cannot appeal not guilty verdict but can make amotion for mistrial
First time commenter here…just wanted to say thank you Pachacutec and FDL.
This is fascinating stuff that will no doubt interfere substantially with my work for the next several months.
Fitz seems to be trying a new strategy to include a whole new line of questions in his vior dire to preempt defense. Defense still gets its bite at the apple, but the ground has already been pre-seeded now with the previous questions and responses. Cognitive recency effect in effect. We’ll see how it affects things, if at all. This next witness seems pretty down the middle, so it’s hard to tell if it matters with this one.
She’s in, Wells is done with her. Yay! Our first juror of the day. . . at noon.
Never has the selection of a jury been this closely watched – w/o a doubt the making of the trial of this new century…
twolf1 @ 83
The depths of deceit that this administration will sink to never cease to amaze me. Not surprise me, mind you…just amaze. My brain just doesn’t come up with stuff like this.
at this point 60% of the country thinks Bush and Cheney have no credibility on the War and the ones who think they do, are all drinking the kool aid.
that leaves a pretty small number of folks who would be impartial.
EvilDrPuma @ 136
They’ve been cutting funding for health research for a while now. Ask any medical researcher. NIH grants are harder and harder to come by these days.
Cripes, we’re in sidebar again. I take it defense is not liking Fitz’s preemptive strategy, but it does not seem as if he’s asking any questions he was not asking later in the process, just doing it earlier.
I still think the attorneys should be paying less attention to the potential jurors current opinion of Cheney and platitudes about fairness and more attention to how they conduct their lives and process information.
As I mentioned in a comment several days ago, questions about checkbooks, sock drawers and TV viewing habits will give you more insight as to how a juror will perform than their opinions on this or that.
Pachacutec @ 126
Well, I don’t blame him. Walton set out ground rules in a series of orders based on a lot of leagl research and arguemnt. Now Walton is allowing Team Libby to flout those rules.
Walton is losing contol of this process.
We have seen tht before where he ruled badly from the bench and then went back and ammended his order a few days later when he had a chance to think about it.
Watch for Wells to keep peppering Walton so he has to make last minut erulings on the fly instead of bring things up ahead fo time so Walton’s chambers has time to do decent research for the decisisons.
I think I see how this is framing up.
If Walton doesn’t seize the reigns (and he may figure this out over the weekend) he is going the way of Judge Lance Ito. It is certainly not too late for Walton to right the boat. It is tipping to one side, it has not capsized
gold– true- but those questions won’t get you an all gooper jury- and this may.
We just had a woman excused right away who said she has been following the case closely, is a partisan Democrat and could not presume innocence. Buh-bye.
Fitzmas @ 135
I was just thinking the very same thing!
Correct me if I am wrong, but all those dismissed so far would have been biased in favor of the prosecution, right? Surely there is a real problem with a procedure that favors one side consistently? Surely no one believes that the pool only includes one flavor of bias — so why is there no discussion in the courtroom of criteria for determining pro-administration bias?
Fitzmas @ 136
oxide @
23
There’s one case in particular where it’s important. Cathie Martin will testify taht on July 12 aboard AF2, there was a very specific discussion of how to respond to Wilson, perhaps including reference to Plame. Martin is also a witness to the Libby side of the Cooper conversation. So to discredit Martin, Cheney will say none of this horrible stuff came up on AF2–thereby discrediting Martin in the process.
Basically, I suspect Libby’s team will pit Cathie Martin’s credibility against Dick’s. And Martin is a crucial witness for Fitz.
MarkC @ 144
Welcome to the land of burden of proof.Over the years, htatt burden has spilled over onto all kinds of things
Everyone @ #138
It’s not just medical research. It’s “good” solid science in general, as I understand it, and it’s been going on for awhile (ever since 01?) – cutting funding, firing people for political reasons, muzzling in other ways, refusing to allow attendance at professional meetings, etc. etc. etc. Your health, your kids’ future, your livelihood, your access to reliable information, your ability to rely on peer-reviewed research,… all are threatened by these goons. *apologies for rant – not even a practicing scientist any more, but lotsa connections, gr-r-r!*
Jeebus, this next 20ish woman is a non-political reporter at WaPo. She stated up front she does not think she could be fair, since she’d want to go fact checking with her reportorial contacts what she hears in court. “I’m a journalist. I’m a gossip. That’s what we do!,” she told Walton.
He’s not letting her off so easy. She says she could abide by instructions not to talk about the case outside of court.
She also feels she has too strong feelings about Cheney, doesn’t trust him or anone associated with him, and anyone close to him would have to jump over a hurdle to make her believe them.
That’s the ticket home.
Cheney will try to save Libby’s ass with what Cheney can and can not de-classify!
Rory O’connor ,David Corn and Amy Goodman (interviewed Murray Waas) have good coverage of the trial also
Pach,
Have you gotten a chance to meet any of the actual or potential players? I’m really interested in the vibe of the courtroom. Is it all business? Is it cold and impersonal? Do the main attorneys for both sides have any sort of mutual respect going on? How’s the pastry?
Regards,
vachon
Cheney should not be able to tesify with respect to matters of law.
vachon @ 152
I’ll be in there later.
Would they delay the start of the trial if they had to spill over into next week with jury selection? Or is it starting Monday no matter what?
rwcole @
41
I had a thought that they could just decide to not call Cheney, after making him a central aspect of the voir dire, so that they can test for anti-war feelings (read sanity) w/o doing so directly.
Just my $.02.
vachon @ 152
goodgawd! why doncha ask ‘im to grab ya a cuppa while he’s up? *g*
uncle toby @ 106
Good point.
Well, except for the people with half-a-life who either think it would be cool to be in on such a high-profile trial (look at that potential witness list!) or who have a good sense of civic duty. While the common public perception is that “everyone wants to get out of jury duty,” having been in that situation, I can tell you there are more good citizens than you might think.
rwcole @ 97
When I was last at jury duty (civil court), there was a pretty clear bias toward the plaintiff in the jury selection process. The people who wanted to get out of service were the better off, more professional types who regard their time as too important for jury duty.
In this case, I suspect that the people who are most likely to want to be on this jury are going to be people who support the administration. If that divide can be as simple as one that says “Cheney is/isn’t a pathological liar.”
Pach–has neither Walton or Fitz noted that there is a difference between lying on a talk show and lying under oath? That even if you find some individual untrustworthy in ordinary life, that their testimony in a courtroom might be more trustworthy?
A-ha. :-) So how does Ari Fleisher fit into this? He might be backing up Cathie.(?) Does Cheney have enough credibility to discredit them both? I guess one would have to think so, in order to get on this jury. I hope Fitzy knows what he’s doing.
Pachacutec @
55
Agree. I’d put it in the fair to good–no real “news”–but he got rid of his ridiculous claims about Fitz.
You might suggest that if he could explain to readers why Risen is being called, it would be genuine “news.” Kind of the same way Leonnig is slowly revealing who will testify for whom from the WaPo.
Pach,
Does Scoots look like he is an active participant in the jury selection process or merely hangin’ wit da homies?
Strategerie @
63
It was Fitz’ filing, not Libby’s.
MarkC @ 145
Fitz should ask them if they watch FAUX news, and if they can trust the MSM to not be biased, considering that so many MSM reporters will be testifying.
I hope that Fitz’ and Walton’s people are reading this — we can bet that Team Libby is.
The next 40ish African American woman works at the CIA, but she’s not an agent. There’s some personal family stuff that came out, whereby her child was the victim of a crime that ws not pursued, but she also has family members in law enforcement.
Fitz chose not to ask all his preemptive questions this time. Seems like he was teetering, he hesitated. But he asked some names of CIA people if she knew them and she didn’t, and was pretty much done. Now Wells is up.
Mad Dogs @ 162
I’m told he’s taking furious notes. He’s off camera.
Richmond @
27
I used to have a security linked job, and I would LOVE to be on that jury, and Wells would not want me to be on that jury. I think having someone that has a clearance on the jury will be very valuable in deliberations.
Phoenix Woman @ 165
also, why couldn’t Walton be using a staffer to keep track? (someone way upthread indicated he wouldn’t be reading since, -um, he’s busy at the moment … jus’ a thot…
Yo Pach,
I have been reading the comments from the sideline on the jury selection and it seems to me that from what you have been reporting, Fitz is really not engaging the jurors or asking enough probing questions to figure out if they will be biased against his case.
In my past trial experience, whenever I saw an opposing counsel not ask too many questions it was evidence of at least one of two things: 1. Opposing counsel is stupid and does not care what the jury make-up is; OR 2. Opposing counsel feels his case is so damn strong that he feels that he could sell it to any 12 yahoos in front of him. From everything I have read concerning Fitz, I would tend to think that he is not stupid. However, I am starting to get the feeling that he is actually getting out-lawyered during voir dire.
Your statement (or loosehead’s) that he was angry or at least terse with Judge Walton was quite a bit disconcerting.
What the heck is going on?!?!?!?
Walton doesn’t want to get reversed- and only Libby can appeal- so he will err on the side of Libby.
How in the hell can they find anyone that does not have “a strike against” the Bush administration based on the run-up to the invasion and the false intelligence shoved down the American peoples throats. If you only listen to Limbaugh and watch Fox well then I get it. Christ 70% of the American public stand against the Bush administration at this point. They must be trying to select from the 30% that are still with them.
The question is can a person allow “new” facts pieces of the puzzle that the public has not been exposed into ones equation? What I would ultimately fear is that the “new” facts or angle used by Libby’s defense would cast a shadow of a doubt on what I think about the case. That if one is letting all of the facts in this “shadow” would change your stance.
This witness has heard people describe “Valerie” to have been “covert.” This is stuff team Libby really wants to keep out of the jury. She has an accurate understanding that everyone who works at the Director of Ops office is “classified,” and this stuff is not what they want in the jury pool, even though the issue of the leak or blowing of cover are not strictly material to the case. Lots of CIA people get, and are really pissed, about the leak. It gets the passion up; it’s potential life and death.
Pachacutec @ 167
so-o-o, he’s in the habit of furiously scribbling precise recollections of events, eh?
USA today’s reporter seems to think Fitz is fighting back …
Link
karelroc @ 170
Not terse with the judge but a bit with his questioning. I don’t feel competent to assess if he is being outlawyered as I don’t know the law and don’t have access to the sidebar discussions.
PS: Does anyone have any info on Fitz’s previous behavior in picking jury’s? For example, during his prosecution of Chicago Governor Ryan, did he enage the jurors more during voir dire? Was he as laid back in that case as he appears to be here?
I remain suspicious of Fitz’s behavior regarding Rove (although maybe he wanted to wait and indict after Libby was hash)- but in any event- this is his highest profile case- he made the decision to bring the charges- I can’t imagine that he won’t fight with everything he’s got for a conviction- so we should see him at his best.
Pach
Do they reserve or throw any seats to the peasants?
I will be in D.C. from Jan 23-29th?
Wells is working to get this one to say something to suggest her prior knowledge of the handling of classified information will bleed into her trial related judgment. I can’t see her getting in, but so far, Walton has not stepped in to stop this, which he does when he feels he’s heard enough. Wells does not want to waste a peremptory on her.
oxide @ 160
No, I think Ari and CAthie are completely separate.
Ari gives you Libby leaking Plame’s identity (with some indication it was covert) on July 7. He may give you more on the strategy relating to the response. But remember–he was in Africa. So it’s going to be stuff already boiled down to an order for him to deliver.
Cathie, on the other hand, was part of SOME of the strategizing w/in OVP–at least early enough that she would seek more information on Wilson and learn independently of Plame. And she’s anotehr corroboration that Libby was told of Plame in the days before he said he “learned it as if it were new.”
Two of the five most critical witnesses (the others being Russert, Judy, and Addington). But for totally different reasons.
portia.vz @ 18
Heh. This is Washington; everyone’s got an opinion, and about the only reason they sometimes avoid expressing them is because they don’t want an argument. I think your inclination toward hope is probably more correct.
Amy Goodman interviewed Murray Waas about the trial , and Rory O’Connor is also covering
Karelrock 177 –
I was wondering the same thing. Surely everybody had an opinion of Governor Ryan too. How did Fitzy handle that? Maybe Fitzy is being laid-back because he wants to prevent an appeal. But it’s a fine line between preventing an appeal and letting in a mistrial-causing schill…
The questioning goes either way. Being questioned is not a pleasant thing in a court room. I’m not sure defense is making a lot of friends with their approach to voir dire, because these people, some of them, will be on the jury. Jeffress and Wells are very capable, but not precisely endearing.
Pat_AlexVA @ 168
I’ve been thinking along those lines myself. I don’t think it’s necessarily good strategy for Wells to try to stack the jury with right-wing types. At some point, one of these old-school life-long Republicans is going to sit up and say, “Whoa! If I did that, I’d have my ass in a sling.” To some extent, I think Fitz gets this, which is why he’s been less obnoxious during voir dire.
I’m also wondering how Libby’s whole “memory” defense is going to play out. In order to claim you “misremembered”, you really have to admit that you were wrong. In other words, Libby’s going to have to admit that he really did reveal Plame’s identity to Judy Miller but later forgot he did so. That’s basically admitting to what the pundits are calling “the underlying crime”. I still can’t figure out how he’s going to pull this off.
Pach. Do you get any sense of what might be happening, if anything, relative to my #122?
-sorry to pester
You’re doing an incredible job!
Question:
Will it look bad for Wells if he zaps too many people for having a clue? Would that encourage Walton to reassert control over his own courtroom, which Wells seems to have taken away?
– Ah, I see Pach’s already addressed this. Wells and Co. might be digging themselves a big hole if they push this too far.
Where does Viveca Novak fit in to this trial?
I think it’s fair to say the defense questioning comes across, in more cases than they would like, as grilling. In federal court. Bleh.
Adie @ 174
LOL
UNfortunately, no one can take a picture of him in the court room.
Hopefully, he’ll continue to do it and hte jurors will see it and Fitz will make a point of it.
emptywheel @ 180
I’m so glad we have you on hand to explain this stuff, EW. I’ve read through it all before, but there’s no way I’d be able to keep it all straight.
how do you get an impartial jury, for a man on trial for lying, when the man committed his alleged crimes workintg for an organization with an international reputation for dishonesty?
sidebars sidebars sidebars. We’re never leaving here tonight.
karelroc @ 170
I don’t think he’s being out-lawyered. A jury pool of average Americans would be stacked 80/20 against Cheney. A DC jury pool will tip even more against Cheney. A significant chunk of that pool will not believe Dick Cheney under any circumstances. Team Libby is being extremely aggressive because they don’t have any other options.
Kathleen @ 189
Nowhere. She has nothing to do with Libby.
lobstakilla @ 133
LOL — you and me both. Luckily I’m in a slow period at work. I just wish I didn’t have to be out of town most of next week when things probably get going for real.
I’m going to need the book, but my recollection was that at one point, Libby was talking to someone on an open line about Valerie, and he indicated he’d have to discuss the issue on a secure line.
To me, that’s going to sink him. That’s proof that he internalized that she was covert.
Kathleen @ 178
I think there’s a room with close circuit access open to the public first come first served. No cameras or recording devices allowed.
Kathleen @ 188
Nowhere. Her role is only related to Rove, not Libby. (Unless Fitz could prove that Luskin was gleaning info abotu Cooper for Libby as well as Rove, but that doesn’t fit VNovak’s story).
Pat_AlexVA @ 197
Eric Edelman after June 19.
Though Defense will argue they weren’t talking about Plame’s identity–that they were talking about Wilson’s identity and details from his trip report, which was also classified.
Pat_AlexVA @ 197
But feel free to get the book anyway!
I need to get some water and wash my face while we’re in another interminable sidebar.
Redshift @ 192
I agree, for a few short weeks in the summer of 2005 I thought I understood things ok… now I’m back to checking with EW to understand it all.
Lunch is looming.
pach/all Thanks for being patient and I hope rookies do not mess with the flow here.
But I am serious when I ask…do they throw any seats to the peasants out here to sit in on the trial?
This potential juror is stuck in limbo until 1:50 PM EST, because the judge just left for a meeting he’s already late for. We still don’t know her fate.
Some fun parody of the voir dire is already up, here
Marcy, I’ll certainly be buying the book. I’m as addicted to this story as I am to caffiene.
Okay, I’m off for lunch.
I agree, for a few short weeks in the summer of 2005 I thought I understood things ok… now I’m back to checking with EW to understand it all.
I second that!!! After Rove wasn’t indicted I have to admit depression set in and I think I blocked all the information I had once gleaned :( . But, yesterday I started to FINALLY regain that sense of Fitzmas again. I know Pach posted long ago to get over it (he said it much nicer) but I just couldn’t…, so I refocused my energy on the twins, local politics, elections, etc… Ahh but it feels so good to finally feel that sense of optimism about justice being served.
Kathleen @ 206
See my response at 199.
Kathleen @ 205
emptywheel @ 198
If you can get there, you can live-blog Pach live-blogging! And so on, ad infinitum ;)
Pachacutec @ 202
puleeze don’t phone or wear a mike in there! ‘kay. don’t want no utoobes outtin’ yez!
David Corn at Bloggingheads talks about the jury selection
Emptywheel: When does your book ship? I was hoping to have mine during the trial. Amazon estimates delivery in early February.
One thing that just struck me. Everybody in the courtroom, prosecution, defense, judge and most jurors are taken it as a given, not even worth discussing directly, that the Vice President is such a notorious liar that there is a very good chance that he will lie on the stand. Or that his word has so little credibility that many people believe they would have to overcome a bias that the Vice President of the United States would commit perjury.
OT, has there just been a giant change in waterpressure a-x the nation, a la superbowl halftime style?
might be a new way to check on trial-lurkin’ magnitude.
jus sayin’… *g*
OH! & someone quick go tell Teddy Stev. his toobes ‘r unclogged fer a bit, but he better hurry…
I’m just wondering how someone can get into the questioning for the jurors that the Prosecution works for the government and policiticians too and will rely on witnesses who work for the government and are politcal just as much as the defense will — so do they feel their distrust for the Administration would be more directed at Administration officials testifying for the prosecution or the defense or whould they tend to be skeptical of both?
emptywheel @ 200
and let’s not forget that Cheney went on Meet the Press and said there was no trip report.
This is the best idea ever (nod to Harriet Myers). I will be glued to this blog all day every day.
Kathleen @ 179
How many people will be able to view the proceedings?
The trial will take place on the sixth floor of the courthouse, in Courtroom 16, which can seat about 100 people. Video and audio of the proceedings will be relayed to an adjacent courtroom, which also seats about 100 people, and to a press room on the first floor, which has the capacity for about 50 journalists, according to a court spokesman.
Can the general public attend?
Yes. Several rows of seats in the main courtroom and all of the gallery seating in the overflow courtroom will be available to the general public. During jury selection, the public will probably not be permitted in the main courtroom.
How long will the trial take and when will it be in session?
About 6 weeks, according to various estimates. The trial is to begin each day at 9:30 a.m., with a lunch break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. The trial will not convene on Fridays, when the judge will attend to other cases. This week’s proceedings are expected to be devoted to jury selection and preliminary issues. Opening arguments are set for January 22.
Thanks…what building is this taking place in?
Would the General public be able to bring in a laptop, too?
I assume that there are no laptops in the live courtroom.
emptywheel @ 201
On or after June 19. I’m not sure the SP is going to argue it was about Plame. I think he may use it differently, arguing it’s ambiguous whether it was Plame, the trip report, or other info related to the trip they discussed, but insisting regardless it shows Libby’s sensitivity to what was classified about the whole matter. Maybe.
Emptywheel. I can’t WAIT to get my copy, but I insist on walking in a store in person. If it’s not on display out front when I arrive, it WILL be by the time I leave *g*
Had to pull that gambit for Greenwald’s “How Would a Patriot Act.”
Related: When are books to be shipped to Borders & Barnes&Noble? Is it too early to go pester? ;->
ArthurKC @
216
They should be shipped from A2 to Amazon’s warehouse today. I don’t think it’ll take Amazon long to turn it around, but I can’t promise.
Kathleen @ 224
The trial will take place in Washington at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, which houses the federal district court and the main federal appeals court in the city. My advice is to go early, as in take a sleeping bag and time your trip to coincide with the Big Dick(’s) testimony. See you there!
Adie @ 227
I also don’t know how long it’ll take it to get to brick and mortar stores (except here in A2, where Common Language will have them tomorrow or MOnday), but as I said, they should ship today.
Phoenix Woman @ 188
No, but jurors are not stupid.
Emptywheel at 228:
Thanks. You will surely learn hear when they start appearing around the country.
Have you learned if any major publications are planing reviews? The NYT? WashPo? If so, do they tell you when the reviews will appear?
looseheadprop @
231
True. This is all being done in front of the jury pool. I’m sure the smart ones will figure out ways around Wells’ questioning.
Adie @ 227
For anyone in DC, we are having a DemocraticUnderground meetup at the Hawk & Dove next Friday night before the march the next day. We are working on setting up a book signing there for emptywheel and her book. Feel free to join us. We have reserved their downstairs Alley Bar from at least 7-10, probably longer.
Fresh thread, up top from Peterr. And Pach will be back again once court resumes after the lunch recess. Just FYI.
Pach will be back on this thread?
SharonRB @ 234
We live too far away for the DC meetup, but it’s great to hear things like that are taking place. Yours won’t be the only one, I’m sure.
I’m still partial to my semi-stealth approach, for some stoopid reason: with the Greenwald book, the salesperson I encountered had never even heard of the book, but found them in the back, still boxed(!) As I went out the door, she was avidly reading & making very appreciative comments, heh. Varying the approach surely helps more than it hurts ;->
Frank Probst @
186
I’ve wondered about both of these issues myself. Washington is lousy with people who are going to think, “he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about the identity of a CIA agent when I’ve kept a laundry list of work-related secrets about things that were far less important? Irresponsible jerk.”
And it seems to me that the “I forgot” defense is truly perilous. Granted, he’s only been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice at this point, but unless his lawyers perform some amazing sleight of hand with some bright shiny objects, the jury’s going to realize that Libby did out Valerie Plame. Where does the “I forgot” defense get you then? It makes it look like demolishing an agent’s career and her cover company is such a trivial part of your day that you don’t even remember doing it later. Yeah, that’s gonna endear you to a jury — make ‘em wonder what the hell else you’re doing with your time that outing an agent slipped your mind.
Pach has resumed live blogging here.
Adie @
237
karelroc @ 177
He didn’t prosecute the Ryan case himself. Patrick Collins was the lead prosecutor on it.
Thanks I have heard about the Hawk and Dove. Have you heard about the Occupation Project? Go check it out!
SharonRB @ 234
Are the jurors who have been prohibitively (initially) passed (accepted) still in the room as subsequent jurors are voir dired? If so, what provisions are made for sensitive questions and answers? Thanks.
Pachacutec @ 150
I wonder if she’s one of WaPo’s gossip reporters — Reliable Source or Celebratology (or whatever it’s called)…
Julie @ 241
Pachacutec @
185
This goes to my question. Is there any sense that the tenor of voir dire from either side is having an effect on the jurors that are not kicked? Any change in the atmosphere when either counsel begins questioning a potential juror?
Pachacutec @ 167
Apprentice 2?