Hey guess who I found in the Libby trial media room? Pachacutec and Christy!!
This is Pach: I'm handing the baton, and the press passes, to my illustrious co-bloggers, though I'm hanging around today to complete my notes on voir dire. That should give me a bit of background on each of the jurors ultimately selected. That should be handy.
I spoke with Jane last night and she sounds great, sharp as ever, and she was plugging me for all kinds of information about last week's Libby coverage experience, but I have to tell you, I didn't have much to offer her that I have not already sent out to you. So stay tuned: Marcy will be taking over live blogging today.
Morning gang! Christy here -- mercifully, there's a coffee cart down the hall. One large Starbucks down...more to come. We got a glimpse of Team Fitz this morning, and of Team Libby -- at least Libby and Wells, anyway, and some assorted briefcase carrying associates. The media room is already filling up -- looks like things are expected to be hopping this week. We'll be getting our bearings today and, if all goes well, and jury selection concludes today and instructions get done, then we'll get to opening statements. The plan at this point is that I'll be in the courtroom at that point and that Emptywheel will be liveblogging in the media room. But we're still working out logistics as the day goes on today.
Emptywheel back again. We're going to liveblog up here on the top of the page starting today, so folks can scan through the liveblog quickly. I'll be updating periodically. I may not be as responsive as I'd like in the comments, but I will try!
Please note: This is not a transcript--unless I use quotation marks, consider this a paraphrase.
First potential juror of the day, a 20ish-30ish white male who votes and has participated in letter writing campaigns. Has heard some of the trial [paraphrase] "I heard this was the only thing that he had found, I was surprised that this was the only thing he found after a long period of investigation." When he was 18 he got a citation for underaged drinking. Parents were in the foreign service, went to diplomatic schools. Went to Bowdoin. Works for Department of Labor.
Fitz: You recall something about the lengths to which the prosecution went.
Juror: I wasn't surprised about the lengths to which the prosecutor went.
Juror heard about Judy's (though didn't name her) fight--thought that it'd be nice if we had a shield law.
Fitz now asking about his ability to take administration witnesses the same way as any other witnesses.
Jeffress up, asking about the war.
Juror: Their statements may have been misguided, but I believe they were honest.
Letter-writing campaigns organized by MoveOn.
Jeffress asks about how much he saw from the indictment.
Juror: I remember hearing there was an indictment.
The leak "had something to do with trying to discredit Joseph Wilson."
Remembers Judy Miller, Novak.
Knows Armitage leaked to Novak. Knows someone is suing someone else.
Jeffress asks about Cheney.
He is the Vice President, so I couldn't approach him the way I could a complete stranger. Brings up the debate with John Edwards, says he was able to assess Cheney's take fairly. [nice answer!!] He's in!
Next juror, mid-thirties, male, may be Latino.
Has done some work for an intelligence agency. Has access to classified information.
Grew up in DC. Has a Bachelors and Masters from George Washington, Masters in telecom and computers. Works in technology field. Two or three working with the government, currently working with a software company.
Reads the WSJ, sometimes Moonie Times and WaPo. Reads the business section, doesn't read editorials. Does consulting for software company, does simulations.
Wells up to ask about intelligence agencies and classified information. Juror asks for private discussion of classified information. Discussion at bench with lawyers and juror about his intelligence work.
Very long discussion--maybe 15-20 minutes.
We're back. Long sidebar, but apparently Wells didn't get him bounced yet. Now he's going to go to work trying to get him bounced because has a security clearance.
Wells, "you've indicated you've done work for intelligence agencies." CIA not one of the agencies. Wells asking about work in past and future for intelligence community. Will that impact how you might assess credibility of witnesses who might work for CIA?
Juror: No.
Juror has security clearance.
Juror doesn't think having a security clearance would bias him.
Wells wants him to put personal knowledge of security clearance to the side. "It would be unfair and improper for you to become an expert in the jury room about how classified information is supposed to be handled." It would be improper for you to go beyond the four corners of the evidence.
Juror says yes, he understands.
Wells now asking about what kind of software simulations juror works on.
Memory questions. Meet the Press questions.
Juror has mixed feelings about case for war. Maybe 20 or 30 years we'll find out if the decisions were correct or not. "Feelings of uncertainty," Wells asks. "Yeah," says juror. No feelings about Cheney.
Fitz back. Asking a memory question. How would you go about determining whether the person was lying or forgot. He made it! I must be lucky forvoir dire, I'm 2 for 2.
Early thirties white woman.
Has heard about the case. Heard the name Scooter Libby. "I honestly don't know any specifics." Doesn't know anything about the case.
Has a friend who is an agent in the FBI. Was in Albany field office. Friends with the agent's wife.
Fitz up. Grew up in Bethesda. Undergrad degree from Loyola. [Ah Fitz is going to like a Jesuit.] Works at World Bank. Some kind of Project Manager.
Canceled subscription to WaPo because had a baby and no longer had time to read it.
Iraq War question. Nervous glance at jury box. Walton asks if she is familiar with Wolfowitz. She knows he's the President of the World Bank, has seen him from a distance.
Has no time to watch TV--comes home from work and does bottles and diapers, the TV that's on is Mickey Mouse.
"I don't follow anything political at all."
Memory question, she understands the way memory works. Fitz up to ask how she would sort out whether memory was a mistake or a lie. I would look at both sides of the, what one person thought and the other person thought, I'd have to hear both sides of it. I would have to see the sides of it, I don't like to think people are liars. That's a pretty strong word. I would have to see both sides.
She's in! 3 for 3!!
Thirty-ish African American woman. Applied to FBI. Didn't test too well for FBI. Has a former coach who is a police officer.
Fitz's questions. Native to Washington DC. Degree in accounting. Accounting consultant for government agencies. Analyzes abnormal balances withing standard ledger accounts.
Reads the WaPo. Hasn't read anything about this case.
Wells, jumps right to the memory questions.
Fitz didn't ask the question he's been using to pre-empt Wells' Iraq questions, so now Wells is doing it.
"I think there's a possibility that the truth hasn't been told; in some situations you can't believe everything you hear and say."
She can give a former member of the Bush Administration a fair trial.
She's in!! 4 for 4!!
Thirties African American woman. Used to work at the court, knows a court room staffer.
Fitz: grew up in SE DC. Went to Eastern High school. Works at a law firm. When she worked in the Court she worked in the probation office. Some attorneys from her firm work in White Collar crime, but she doesn't work with those attorneys.
Reads the WaPo. Watches Fox.
No positive or negative impression of prosecutors or defenders.
Jeffress up. Worked at another law firm, a family law firm. She's a legal secretary. Did workstudy at Department of Transportation.
Jeffress asking the memory question. Tends to think things are honest disagreement, once people talk and compare memories, you can figure out what it was. No belief about why you'd forget. "It's just bad memory, I guess."
Now up on War questions--not aware of any controversy on the war.
Fitz up on how you decide about memory. I wouldn't just judge them. I wouldn't assume they lied, that's not my personality or character.
She's in!! 5 for 5!!!
We're going to have a short day.
Thirties (everyone looks thirties to me--I must not have had enough coffee), may be ethnic of some sort.
Has an opinion about about Iraq. Believes they've been dishonest on Iraq war.
Can't really hear him, but he has repeated "dishonest" about 10 times.
Bu-bye.
Sixties African American woman, Doesn't believe in the Administration. It would affect her ability to judge.
Bu-bye.
Forties white male. Wears a hearing aide in one year, but can hear well with it.
Reads the newspaper. Doesn't remember what he read in the newspaper.
It's gets mixed in with all the news.
Friend just completed training at FBI academy and is on his first assignment. Talks with him about it generally, not about any of the cases he works on. His friendship wouldn't affect his ability to judge law enforcement testimony.
Lawyer friends who have done pro bono work. They have told him about the work they do--they've primarily done housing law.
One of (female) roommates in grad school is an economist and worked for CIA during the summers.
Has had access to classified information. Worked as Staff Economist Council of Economic Advisors in summer 1994-5. Used to work at DOJ as budget analyst.
Victim of crime in 1987, apartment robbed. Brother charged with possession of drugs. His brother served time in Alabama state prison, served a year. Feels he was treated fairly.
Fitz up. Born in PA and grew up in Alabama. Moved to DC, third time in DC, most recently moved her in 2004. BA in Economics from Harvard, PhD in Economics from MIT. DOJ, CEA, taught at Carnegie Mellon advanced accounting and business strategy. Laura Tyson Chair at Council of Economic Advisors when he started, then Joseph Stiglitz replaced her.
Reads NYT and WSJ. Reads business, tech, style, op-ed section.
Wells up. Asking about partiality wrt DOJ.
Investment banker, helps finance companies raise money. Company serves primarily finance, health care, energy, diversified industrials...
Doesn't know whether Administration has lied or not.
No pre-existing feelings about Cheney.
Memory question.
Doesn't watch news shows. Has heard of MTP. No pre-existing feelings about Russert.
Fitz up with his process of memory question.
He's in!!
Woohoo! We have a potential jury pool. I think.
Oops. We're not done. Looks like they're replacing the two from last week who were of uncertain status. So we've got another potential, a twenties or thirties African American woman, a teacher in private childcare. Works with infant to four.
Reads the Express if she does read the paper. Watches Channel Five in the morning.
I don't really get into that [politics] much. No feelings about war.
In response to the memory question, she says, "most of the time someone is lying."
"If they played a bad part in a situation, they'd want to deny it." "Yes."
Says you look at evidence, then said, "can't really tell."
A keeper!
We seem to be at 36, but the rest of the jury pool is off until 3, so we're on hold until then.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
FITZ x 3!
Morning Powwow! :)
Morning, gang. 20’s white male up first.
Morning, all. Best of luck today.
So glad to see everyone ready to go. This is really great timing — for me at least. Today I have to remain on clear liquids ALL DAY for a battery of tests tomorrow and hopefully I will not even think about food. Yeah, right.
This is a great way to spend the day reading all the great comments.
So, with popcicles and jello at the ready, I await the flow of info from the best media in the business — Christy, Marcy and Pach.
Good morning all.
Thank you for all you are doing. It feels like I’m there with you. What an experience. I don’t comment often but I’m here at least three times a day (since the beginning of FDL) and I want you to know how much I appreciate all of you. I’m gushing but it’s sincere.
A triple Fitz morning to you all — talk about an embarrassment of riches!
FITZMAS!
Morning everyone!
Morning JANE!
Morning Pach, Christy & Emptywheel!
WOW. A threeper there today.
Watch out world. The dawgs found the “In” door!
Christy. I’m sippin’ my Starb. too. Yum.
popcorn for later….
Good luck gang. We’re peering over yer shoulders. Will TRY not to pant ‘n drool too much…
Fitz doing standard bias related questioning of this witness. Pending Jeffress’ review, he seems like he might get through.
Hi guys. did you hear the long pieces on the Libby trial on NPR this morning? It sounds like Walton is bending over backwards to give the defense as much as it wants for striking potential jurors but for Fitz? ehhhhhh, not so much. Do you think this is to prevent challenges after the verdict? IANAL and don’t even want to play one on TV.
GrandmaJ @
5
Does Stolichnaya count as a clear liquid?
Morning Grandma!
Top O’ The Morning To Ya (that’s my best Irish accent in tribute to Fitz).
I surely do hope they finish with jury selection today. Even ABC News noted the irony of having open statements heard on the same day Bush gives his SOTU. The media actually appears to be chomping at the bit on this one.
Jeffress smells a liberal. The guy says he has participated in some MoveOn letter writing campaigns, but he also says, relative to the case for war, thet he does not believe the administration lied. Says administration was misguided but honest. Jeffress still plumbing the potential jurors’ knowledge of backstory and events, from press coverage.
This is all the standard questioning we saw last week.
I’ve been thinkin’….Voir Dire is supposed to uncover bias. People are being dismissed because of their low opinions of Bush/Cheney. Perhaps that is not bias, but merely sound observation of reality.
Thanks ya’ll for great coverage. And, my best to Jane.
Jeffress switching to his memory questions. GThere’s noting from this juror so far on potential bias against Cheney or the administration to lead to being excused for cause.
Pachacutec @ 13
The juror is lying. If you know enough to write a letter for MoveOn, you know enough.
Yay! We’re at 31. This guy is still in, we’re going to the next potential juror.
Pachacutec @ 17
sweet
Yay jurors!
Yay Pach!
I just went over to C&L to light a candle for Jane and they already had somebody from Russia! Go figure.
People from around the world praying and sending energy for your healing…it is amazing.
As I have had the privilege to know. Thx all for the love, much needed and appreciated.
cyn2 @ 14
yep. sounds good to me. bell curve just took a hefty hop to the left eh?
Go Fitzie & Team!!!
Thank you FDL for your dedication on covering this trial! Not much of a poster here, but lurk when I can.
I will be sending a check this week for support. Once again thank you, and Jane is in my prayers.
Hey egregious!
Hope things are going well.
Stay safe good friend. ;->
egregious, you can see all the candle groups here. Jane’s page has the third highest number of candles, but the highest number of different countries.
Christy’s going to reveal my dressing habits–well she’s in her hippy chic velvet jacket with cool embroidered margins. Very nice.
By the way, Emptywheel is in a lovely business jacket this morning, fitted, with a nice black sweater and slacks. Pach is in a shirt and tie, and khakis. And I’m in hippie chic. *g*
Pachacutec @ 17
! ;->
The next juror is a 30’s white or pehaps latino male with a tech consulting job, and experience working with classified information and projects. He does not really want to discuss in detail what he does, but Wells does not want people who have very set ideas about how classified information is handled. So, the questioning is continued now at sidebar.
Based on last week, there’s no way this guy won’t be excused for cause. That’s my bet. He seems to have very careful and set ideas abot the handling of intelligence related stuff, and my guess is he’s doing DoD work right now.
I’ve also gotten a glimpse of Barbara Comstock this morning as well.
Still in sidebar gang.
Go get em gang! Love to JANE!
Balrog “Does Stolichnaya count as a clear liquid?” And what, pray tell, is that? I assume it is some liquor so don’t think so but I grant it would making drinking a gallon of vile liquid this p.m. easier if I were tipsy. Or down right saturated with the stuff.
Oh, and good morning Balrog. A little nippy out there this a.m. in Minnesota. The Winter Carnival and ice hockey people are very happy.
Back to reading.
Portia @ 10, if Walton continues bending over backwards for Libby, the defense will have no reason to challenge the (not guilty) verdict.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
Did you get a spew warning?
Peterr at 33 — Unfortunately, no — and I’m out of coffee already. Blergh. Will have to remember to grab an extra cuppa from now on…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
Christy, every day has its little setbacks.
We’re back in open court, with Wells questioning this guy on the record. Not sure where this is headed. But he’s still alive as a potential juror.
So while the sidebar continues, you can do moe fashion comentary, what is the lovely Ms.Comstock wearing today?
She was in her red jacket again from what I recall.
portia.vz @ 10
My gf was laughing this morning that they assigned Libby Lewis to the Lewis Libbey trial. She was the one that did the interview with Judge Walton.
Wells is really laying out to this guy how limited he would have to be by way of review of classified material in the trial if he is selected. Like any good lawyer, he’s actually instructing him, but doing it in the form of a question.
This is weird. Looks like ths guy might get through. I’m thinking Wells might be close to the limit of his intended strikes, and may this he will have to let this guy slip through, if it comes right down to it. But now he’s plumbing war related questions, the decision to go to war, credibility of the administration.
This has been Wells’ most successful area in getting someone to ive reasons for dismissal for cause, but the guy got through.
[sorry Pach, not for you, as per prior stern harumph, but, welllll…]
.
.
we GOTTA have a grouper of the other 3 sumthyme! Jes a lil’ sumthin’ to post a-top a “Pull-up-a-Chair” ‘r sumthin’
OHPULEEZE. whimper whine yip yip *lying with head on paws, eyebrows twitching back ‘n forth from face to face, eyes HEUUUGE! drooolll*
p.s., velvet? reeely? kewl!
He’s still in. I bet wrong.
Peterr @ 34
did barbara get one? fair’s fair… *g*
Wo0T! We’re at 32. We need four more.
30ish white female next, with very little recollection of any coverage of the case other than Libby’s name. Has a friend who is an FBI agent.
Pachacutec @ 46
…humming the Jeopardy theme…
Courtesy of The Uniter, we are in an extemely divisive political climate. The mere mention of Move-On puts an imborrable stain on this guy where Libby defense is concerned. The young fellow mentioned his Move-On letter writing of his own accord? He’s getting the hook for sure.
Fitz makes a bit of a show about saying he is not asking about people’s opinions about the war in Iraq, in contrast to what the defense is doing.
This is a subtle way to say, “I just want fair people, and I’m not going to pry into your political feelings.”
Jeffress is up. Now he’s getting into the controversy over the reasons for going to war. She insists that, with a two year old at home, she does not follow politics. At all.
GrandmaJ @ 32
they obviously want ya saturated - or at least, it’ll feel like it, oogh - but I doubt they want ya pickled - be a good girl GrandmaJ *g*
Here’s to having today & tomorrow go just fine for ya.
Man oh man, you guys are doing a spectacular job. I am so very grateful.
(lurk a whole lot, hardly ever post, but the coverage is soooo good, so smart!, I couldn’t resist.)
Is the media room filled, and are you all three there together? and is there a pool assignment today?
Hmmm. . . this woman states she does not consider anyone a liar, as a general matter of course. Seems she made the cut, but we don’t have a clear indication. We’re on to a 40’s African American woman now.
Pachacutec @ 55
I like African American women from DC for the jury!
“This is Libby Lewis reporting on the Lewis Libby trial. Now for a commercial break brought to you by Libby’s. Back to you in the studio, Lewis.”
“When it says Libby’s, Libby’s, Libby’s on the label, label, label….”
-GSD
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
If necessary, a cross and holy water should keep her at bay. *g*
Pachacutec @ 51
-uh- Christy…. oops, sure he wood-uv given spew-alert if he warn’t so bizzie. u o.k.? just u keep comparing shoes with ole barb there… *g*
This is so cooool…I’m going to have a hard time doing my job today. Shhh…don’t tell the boss. So glad the gang is in the courthouse!
This juror got through Walton and then the brief questioning of Fitz. Wells up.
Just about full. We three are sitting in a row. The pool process is I think active on a restart from last week’s rotation.
Tell us what kind of shoes Barb Comstack wears to cover her hooves.
OT - Tony Snowjob presser live on C-SPAN
Glorfindel at 62 — To be honest, I wasn’t paying attention to her shoes at the time.
Pachacutec @ 42
Maybe, just maybe, there was further briefing/arguement on the issue over the weekend and Wlaton is retaking control of this process?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 64
One must always pay attention to shoes. More important that a yellow tie/not.
egregious @ 66
Sorry all, it was snark. Didn’t expect any replies.
Unless the weather is a factor (traction or not wanting to ruin suede) You can tell alot about my mood from my shoes. *g*
If they finish early on the jury selection, do they just adjourn for the day? or do they try to move on, as it were…?
Looks like she may be in.
Yep. She’s in. We’re four for four. 34 jurors, two more needed.
Next 30ish African American woman is very jovial. She’s a legal secretary who has gotten through Walton and Fitz, and now Jeffress is doing the memory question tango with her.
Looks like we may be five for five. Jeffress just gave up on her, though she seems to have a predisposition to assume people don’t lie. Fitz is asking her memory questions.
Do you think both Fitzy and Team Libby
worked all weekend on strategy? Or is this 24-7
all the time?
Jack
Shout out to Marcy from Michigan!! ;-)
Nice work, Pach, can’t wait until the full jury is locked in and you can give us a high-level assessment on potential group dynamics.
She’s in. We need one more.
seems to be going more expeditiously today…no?
Pachacutec @ 74
Well, all right. Walton must of put the clamp down on Wells et. al.
Ah, this next young guy was gone fast. He believes the administration has doen a lot of lying, does not feel he can be impartial. Excused.
Hmmm.. almost too expeditiously. I wonder if Team Libby thinks that they’ve already got the jury they want. Whatever, if PJF isn’t worried, I’m not worried. He’s won the big ones before.
Moot Court [Moderately Original Off-Topic in Court thread]
Russia/surgery update. With only one really bad swear word.
But it was about stealing supplies going to save the lives of newborns, I’m justified right?
TRex yes I can get email. Go for it.
Back to your regularly scheduled topic, and
Yay surgery:
(((((((JANE out of the hospital!!!!)))))))
I wonder if all the trial coverage has let people know exactly how they can get on the jury and how they can get off. I know the potential jurors are not supposed to be paying attention to the media coverage but it sounds like they are …
The nest 60’s African American woman was quickly excused for the same reasons. She does not trust the adminitration and does not feel she can be impartial.
Adie at 52
Thanks Adie, I will try. I am bribing myself with the promise of a big steak dinner tomorrow night. :)
If they get the jurors they need, will there be opening arguments this P.m.? Or tomorrow.
looseheadprop @ 68
Ditto
Thanks, all - really amazing to read here! I know jurors are not supposed to read blogs or news on TV, etc - but do you suppose Walton, Wells and Fitz and/or staffs do?
Oops, sorry Adie. I asked the question you already asked. Gotta be fast here.
Comstock makes canned pie fillings, ergo Libbys and Comstock are both canned goods brands. America would benefit by having both of these named characters in the can, whereby they would desist from continued public (dis)service.
I know Libby lost his day job, but he’s still got a million dollar future. If Libby loses this trial, we seem to concur that Libby will be pardoned by the Bicycle Chief.
We’re all pulling for just. . . . one. . . ..more!
hackworth @ 86
Then there’s the fabled Comstock load (of ****)
Pachacutec @ 87
Will the culling occur today and will youz guys be able to see it?
We have a 30’s white make up now. Seems to be getting through Walton’s questions pretty well so far.
hackworth @ 89
Yes and yes, from my understanding.
Turns out this guys is a highly educated, highly qualified economist, from top schools nationally.
Fitz is done with this guy; here comes Wells.
hackworth at 89 — if we can get the number of jurors to begin that, then we should move on to the challenges and then perhaps to jury instructions. We’ll see…
Pachacutec @ 91
Bravo! I guess they’ll break for lunch after the last juror is selected. All their bellies might be growling this morning and they’re in a hurry to eat.
There was a perceptable electrifying rush of excitement when this thread was announced downstairs, worth every second soaking it up.
Great job Pach and Marcy, and I’m thrilled for Christy!
*shoutout to Rayne*
This guy is going to make it. He got through Wells. Looks like 36.
GrandmaJ @
85
naw. i was jus’ gettin’ too gabby by far. gonna shuddup & read now like a good lil (don’t I wish!) guurrrl. enjoyed our chat ;->
I bet the female African-America accountant is the first strike by the defense.
Yep: 36. Some applause in the media room.
Now the two sides will have time to figure out their strategy on strikes, kind of like the pre-NFL draft. We’ll probably be back in an hour or so, based on what I heard last week. But I don’t have the next part of this morning’s schedule confirmed, so consider all this an expectation, not a news report.
Adie, GrandmaJ, always good to hear from you either here or on egregiousBlog.
I think Mr. MoveOn Foreign Service parents is a quick defense strike.
Can someone please tell me the meaning of *g*.
Pachacutec @ 100
Pach,
Yours IS the news report. Everybody else’s is derivative.
People who report for newspapers are reading YOU.
Okay, now I’ve gotta get to work. Ice and snow are my excuse for going an hour late. *g*
Wonderful post, Marcy. Thanks, Pach and Christy.
Redshift @ 105
That would work for me, except that there is no ice and no snow here in Russia. In January. They are totally freaking out about this weird weather.
A question on Mr. Classified…
Earlier LHP said that you could bring past experiences into the room, but you weren’t allowed to go off and do research on questions that arise in the case.
Wells seems to say Mr. Classified could not bring in his own (prior) knowledge of security procedures into deliberations. Did I misunderstand Wells, or lhp, or was there a deliberate oversimplification somewhere that someone could set straight? Thanks!
mpower1952 @ 103
Grin. *G* is big grin. They’re kind of like smilies, but a bit more subtle.
mpower1952 @ 103
grin
Fitz should definitely strike Ms. Lockheed-Martin, and the young man who was the last in on Thursday, the guy who reads mostly conservative blogs, oh, and Dkos. Yeah right.
Unfortunately, Fitz may not strike them if he thinks they can be impartial. Though I think it’s hard to not have pro-admin bias in the case of Lockheed-Martin, especially when your profits are coming in like mad from the war.
Oh yeah, we still had two form last week that might have dropped out for cause, after their original voir dire, but the court never confirmed. I see another potential juror up, but our audio feed is dead. 20’s African American female.
Redshift @ 109
I owe you a coke.
Pachacutec @ 112
No audio feed…lip reading? Keep going, keep up the good work.
Thanks egregious and redshift.
Audio is back, but we missed part of this woman’s voir dire. She works as a teacher in one of the higher end daycare centers in the Bethesda area.
Oops, she thinks people with different recollections of past events, one is probably lying.
mpower1952 @ 115
We are all new at something.
The people who have helped me with the little things are the same who have enabled me to go on and do the big things.
Small deeds: big results [Mother Teresa]
Seems like she is making the right answers about presumption of innocence, but as a teacher, she has a pretty good bullshit detector, on my guess. She’s in. Now we’re at 37?
Pachacutec @ 81
So, people who are paying attention, and who care, cannot sit in judgment. What is wrong with this picture. Yes I know the legal stuff.
Pachacutec @ 100
Excellent reporting, Pach. You are a smart man. You have no peer.
Pach–
Why are they continuing? To account for the 2 who might be stricken for cause?
We’re in a short recess. It appears only one juror of last week’s two fuzzy ones dropped out, so it appears we are at 36 now. We don’t know yet which of last week’s contentious two is gone.
Will jury selection continue today to get down to the 12/4?
Pachacutec @ 122
Contentious two? Are you referring to the Lockheed person and the powerline reading attorney?
Yesterday Jeralyn posted “Libby Trial: Out of the Starting Gate” and linked to looseheadprop’s post about opening processes, and the Libby Trial.
When I clicked the link I got a 404 Not Found? Anyone have a correct link?
Thanks.
Now I’m off to read this LONG live blog. How exciting!
Prof. Foland at 108 — Mr. Classified cannot serve as an expert on the issues involved in classification procedures — they have to base their decisions on that on what is introduced into evidence. Not what he may understand the procedures and restrictions as being. See the distinction?
Shout out to Shez!! How’s things in your part of MI?
egregious — yes, there is something very wrong with our system when the best informed are not qualified to be jurors. If we could be certain they were like my spouse - uninformed but skeptical and serious about their civic duty - it might be salvageable. But I don’t know too many folks who are all those things; they are either too trusting, unserious or both. Hate to think my fate rested in their hands.
They’ve added one more, so we’re at 37.
The rest of the qualified juror pool won’t be back until 3PM, per Walton’s instructions last Thursday. This was based on how hard it was for us to get six more jurors Thursday.
Okay, now we have word there are 37 qualified jurors; they pulled an extra just in case.
We’ll be back shortly for some discussion among the lawyers about jury instructions. Somewhere soon we’ll get to strikes, I expect. Maybe after lunch.
Hey Christy.
Last week there was nothin’ but a very strong & totally unscientific hunch goin’ on here. This week &/or thereafter I’d LOVE a measurement, if someone can figure out how.
Member back when they 1st started holding the Super Bowl, and -erm, technicians noticed a HEEUUUGE upsurge in the use of plumbing, as it were, right AT the start of half-time? I know. You’re too young, but I remember.
FDL thread was so-o-o-o absolutely DEAD when the court broke for lunch last week. Well… you know… It might be a terrific way to measure FDL’s strength & reach. eh?
will cross, um, fingers & anxiously await further comment on this urgent issue…
it could be called the “adiefactor” says she, modestly dreaming of future textbooks in Historical Lawpsych 101.
Q: the court room cannot hear the cheering in the media room, can they?
Q: who’s in the media room? anybody we “know”?
Terre @ 125
Try here for all LHP’s front page delights!
Will the mikes be on for the lawyers discussing the jury instructions?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 126
In short, no. Sorry for being so dense.
I mean, I can understand what you said, but it seems like a blanket prescription for not being allowed to use any personal knowledge on any subject that could come up at a trial. I can see this leading to absurdist situations–so where is the line?
Can you go over again the theoretical reason for
strikes?
Wonder how this procedure was first put into practice…
Does it make the jury fairer?
Jack
egregious @ 102
u too, hon. can you feel the little backrub thru the toobes during your downtime tw surgeries there? ;->
Wow — after a couple of decades in the media biz this is some of the most “groundbreaking” reporting and use of the medium (those “tubes”) I’ve seen in a long time. Just as compelling as gavel-to-gavel coverage on the radio. Congratulations, team FDL!
Keep it up — our hats are off to all of you.
I can’t keep my internet connection “always on” as I’m off the grid and on solar power, but I’ll be checking in throughout the day.
Thanks so much — got a candle going for the Lady Jane. When she makes her escape from LA, lookout DC!
peace…
Great job everyone!!!
Now on to the opening statements. What an historic event to actually take a little part in through you folk.
OT - It snowed in Tucson last night - a once in every several year occurrence!!.
Jane - get well soon.
Bob
Can we get the “cheat sheet” on the 37? I’d love a quick summary on who they wound up with, and what you all think of their chances of getting through.
Not at all urgent, but does anyone remember what the fellow who does simulations does simulation of? I ask in part because I’m in a related field, but also because various portions of the simulations community have had an interesting time the last six years or so; climate, obviously, and also the military war games people (Millennium Challenge anyone?) and also economics (there was a very funny joke paper floating around a while back about (IIRC) the link between tax cuts, economic growth, and the “missing dark matter” problem in physics). Then there’s the Club of Rome vs. Resource Fungibility debate, and Peak Oil, etc. Oh, and forest management, epidemics and disease control…
It may not matter what sort of simulations he does, but I’d be interested to know, just out of curiosity.
–MarkusQ
Simulates sanity in the White House and measures it’s potential value.
Thanks Peterr!! :o)
TT (Tangential Topic):
New Wiki up for ‘LEAKED classified docs’
http://wikileaks.org/
edit:
h/t
http://www.maclife.com/forums/topic/92422
Nicole Sawaya @ 139
YESSS! Isn’t it something, though?! I’m not in the media biz, but w/ behav. training background & many years of frustration closely watching MSM & politics et al., & feeling increasingly helpless…..
Well. It’s just plain INCREDIBLE! Seemingly overnight, a whole bunch’a folk are gonna have to figure out how to straighten up & fly right, otherwise step aside & let the good guys do it. And it’s not just entertaining. It’s POWERFUL! You just keep watching! *G*
Meanwhile,back at the Administration…
This from Army Times via Truthout:
Sources Say Caseworkers for Wounded Laid Off
OT - Top military Republican to introduce own anti-surge resolution
On topic, related. How the press is covering this all. Neil Lewis as a piecein the NYT today on the Libby trial. He misses the mark (intentionally it seems). The issue of this case for many of us mere readers/citizens is not reporter confidentiality, but the egregious ways in which journalists such as Judith Miller (and her NYT upper echelon cheerleaders) used her position to push lies furnished her by corrupt upper level people in the U.S. government who wanted war. The fact that she is Jewish may have made their shared neo-Con (pro Middle East war) agenda particularly beckoning to her, but as a journalist, she as well as her editors, and the Times ownership more generally share a huge responsibility in this rush to war, the mess we are now in, and the deaths and maming of so many of our soldiers, to say nothing of the disastrous economic situation this has caused. “Journalists” at the the Washington Post, of course, hold blame. Once journalists leave the field of journalism to become ideologues for particular religious, cultural, and/or political views, they are no different than any other ideologue. Fitz has every right to go after them. The crux of this case indeed rests on the very belief that such journalists would never turn their backs to this administration because they were both in it together.
the “adiefactor” briefly kicked in, just a tad.
(in re my #131)
Did ya feel it? Did you, y’know, help?
I’m sure mods noticed. kewl eh?
twolf1 @ 147
It is going to be really, *really* annoying if we get the Repubs back in 2008 because they jumped on the antiwar wagon faster and yelled louder than Dems.
Mornin’ Doggies, Christy, Marcy, and omg, Pachacutec too ? jeebus, the FDL College Bowl Team !!!
a day off w/ minimal homecraft chores - so I was rooting around the FDL archives looking for something for a friend (found it!) and of course then proceeded to spend 90 minutes lost in all the prescient posts/graphics/comments
. . . a little Fitz cheesecake while we wait (think K-Lo on Mitt)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blo.....erald2.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p.....gerald.jpg
http://firedoglake.blogspot.co.....iever.html
oh, and Jane Hamsher is the Oracle of Left Blogphi
http://firedoglake.blogspot.co.....s-son.html
Renee in Ohio -
per your comment downstairs, and Mister Renee’s perfect ‘t-shirt’ - one of my fave FDL graphics - abject clarity
http://firedoglake.blogspot.co.....lists.html
Well done. :)
twolf1 @ 147
“Warner will be backed by another Republican and a “conservative Democrat.”
Loserman? He’s going to call himself a Democrat now?
Oh, and Thanks everyone at the courthouse. This was really amazing. I wish I could have read it all as it came in, but it makes for an amazing post-read.
still showin on the chart (#131)
can’t get anyone to comment who’s involved…
NO one around here multi-tasking? *g*
whut t’heck. that’ll just make it a stronger “indicator”
sorta “seizmaflush”…
you wait & see. i’ll be famous… Popeel move over…
New thread.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....s/#respond
i dont know much of law - but when does the actual trial begin? after the jury has been seated? i wish this could be shown on court tv!! still sending get well wishes to jane!
mc @ 153
It may be Nelson of Nebraska.
Adie @ 155
Um, Adie, I refilled my coffee mug, picked up the cat bowls and surfed a few other sites. Did not flush, not this time. ;)
go ahead. run away to yer new thread. yer still busted. hee hee.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....ent-467846
HotFlash @ 159
Didn’ mean it had to be shown by the actual plumbing. It’s shown by the toobez themselves. the # of comments jammin’ the toobez. Get it?
I know I’m nuts, but that has nothing to do with it, maybe.
mc @ 153
I think smart money is on Nelson (Nebraska edition).
Richmond @148–You made a comment that I don’t want to let slide.
You mentioned Neil Lewis’s NYTimes article on the Libby trial (but didn’t provide a cite). Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....press.html
Regarding Judith Miller, you said, “[t]he fact that she is Jewish may have made their shared neo-Con (pro Middle East war) agenda particularly beckoning to her….” Whoa–sorry, point not taken. For one thing, being Jewish dooesn’t cause one to find the neocon agenda “particularly beckoning.” For another, Judy’s not Jewish unless you have some inside info about a conversion–her father is Jewish, her mother Irish Catholic.
–
@ 148. I think Miller’s motivations may have been strictly personal/professional. You find an inside source, you get what no one else gets. You’re not driven by politics but success. Next, your source gets in hot water. What do you do, protect or sell ‘em out? Libby had given her so much. Miller may be the kind of American who believes our government has good reasons in our best interest when it pursues a pro-war policy even if, in hindsight, the evidence begins to appear suspect and contrived.
CityGirl @ 163
Yes, if you want to be exact; I was addressing this more in terms of self identity (as in French Americans (even those with other parents) or African Americans.
neil @ 164
More cool aid?
Richmond @ 166.
Your assumption that Miller’s motivations were parallel to Libby’s - ideologically driven - is unsubstantiated.
If you want to cultivate a person to plant stories about WMD in Iraq on the front page of the NYT, you don’t need to find an ideologically driven person. In fact, that might complicate the issue once it was placed under scrutiny. You just need to find someone who’s interests parallel yours. Miller was motivated by her career.
What do you mean ‘More cool aid?’
Do you mean for me? for someone else?
It’s Kool-aid.
HotFlash @ 146
I wish the article would have explained how it is that the program being cut is redundant to the Defense Dept’s program. It does not explain what the Defense Dept’s program even does, much less whether or not it has caseworkers to perform the same functions.
Thanks for sharing this.
Richmond @ 166.
Your assumption that Miller’s motivations were parallel to Libby’s - ideologically driven - is unsubstantiated.
If you want to cultivate a person to plant stories about WMD in Iraq on the front page of the NYT, you don’t need to find an ideologically driven person. In fact, that might complicate the issue if the source was placed under scrutiny by the editors or the public. You just need to find someone who’s interests parallel yours. Miller was motivated by her career.
What do you mean ‘More cool aid?’
Do you mean for me? for someone else?
It’s Kool-aid.
from the top
potential juror says in questioning…
outing an agent?
neil @ 169
Sorry my bad on the Kool-aid. Haven’t consumed it recently. And yes, I do mean that Miller’s motives were ideologically driven to some larger degree. Were they exactly the same motives as Scooter? probably not exactly, but I do think the whole drive to refashion the Middle East is in large part ideologically driven (plus, of course, oil, armament profits, rapture ideology and a few other things thrown in). But why Iraq (and Iran now) and not the horn of Africa (where there is oil), or North Korea? Perceived (and some real) threats to Israel were key to the early and ongoing war support effort of this administration and those journalists, newspapers, and both TV and radio outlets that have continued to press this cause, regardless of the death in human life and financial cost.
On sources and careers: Miller purportedly slept with some of her sources - so the issue of morals and professionalism is moot. How much better for her stature and long term career if she had chosen instead to go after those sources (and there were many) who were arguing that there were no WMD in Iraq. Then, she would have truly stood out for her integrity and the highest journalism offers.
…”may be ethnic of some sort.”
Wha? We’re all “ethnic of some sort”. I’ve grown to hate the word, and it definitely has racist baggage associated with it. You might want to give some thought to what this expression means, and possibly find a better way of putting it that doesn’t imply “not white like us”.
Just a helpful reminder that words count.
A regular lurker, I had to tell you all how much I appreciate this fantastic coverage. As a Canadian living in the US (i.e. can’t vote) knowing that SOMEONE whose head is not up the a** of this administration is covering this trial gives me hope. My daughter in Vancouver is watching you guys and passing on the message to her pals, who obviously are not getting the real deal through the media.
Rock on…
BTW we aliens are confused - in a trial on a charge of perjury what difference does it make whether or not a potential juror approves of the conduct of the present administration? Just asking. Makes one think that everyone inside the beltway long ago lost sight of the forest and is just counting the rings on the trees (which of course they are busy cutting down).
#173: approval of the conduct of the administration is code for whether the juror can be fair when judging the defendant’s actions and not come into the jury box already p.o’d against the administration to the point that they could not fairly look at, assess and make a reasoned judgment on the case. It has to do with prejudice against the defendant.
Great blogging, guys. It’s going to be so hard not to be logged on all the time…
theexog @
173
Thanks for de-lurking.
My opinion of the jury bias is a little different. Of course the defense would want to prevent any anti-administration (Libby/Cheney/others) to limit the chance of disbelief based on prior claims. I think they also want to set up the ability to persuade the jurors in matters of ambiguous decisions based on personal judgment. These are the tough decisions we hear so much about - the ones that are hard work (/snark). These decisions are judgment calls that the defense would have us believe could go either way. The witness and defendant credibility is in tatters for most of the public but somehow there may be 30% that would see an action as acceptable under the right circumstances.