Tim Russert must have been heaving huge sighs of relief at Judge Walton's decision to spare him another round with Ted Wells; having his political hackery publicy exposed like that was obviously making Monseigneur Tim uncomfortable. None of Wells' other motions got very far today -- Walton also seemed inclined to view most of what he was trying to do with regard to testimony from Libby's CIA briefers as not particularly relevant to the case.
Tomorrow, Fitzgerald and Libby's lawyers will be arguing over the instructions to the jury and on Tuesday, we'll hear closing arguments. There should be some interesting theatrics from both sides.
As a side note: Jeralyn Merritt is indulging in some informed speculation to the effect that Team Libby actually focus-grouped Dick Cheney. The results showed that he was so loathed that the ill-will risked spilling over onto Scooter. And thus, given that the VP comes in slightly lower in popularity than novacaine-free dental surgery, the decision was made to not put him on the stand.
Jeralyn also has a rundown of the final hours of the trial, and Marcy Wheeler recaps some of the issues that are going to be critical in the closing statements. And Sidney Blumenthal, who played "blogger for a day" earlier this week and came to the trial with us has this scoop in Salon:
Throughout the anxious months before the trial of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, one of Scooter Libby's old mentors, a prominent Washington attorney and Republican with experience going back to the Watergate scandal and with intimate ties to neoconservatives, implored him repeatedly to stop covering up for Vice President Cheney and to cut a deal with the special prosecutor. Yet another distinguished Washington lawyer and personal friend of Libby's, privy to the mentor's counsel, reinforced his urgent advice and offered to provide Libby with introductions to former prosecutors who might help guide him. But Libby rebuffed them. He refused to listen. He insisted on the trial.
Watching Libby during the trial, I've also been struck by the impression that he thinks himself a "great man," and that the trial is a way to preserve his honor. Thus instead of launching a more plausible, "everybody makes mistakes" defense (as Jeralyn has noted would be a much easier sell to a jury) the defense has gone for broadside attacks against anyone who contradicted him. I have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, but even if he skates, I'd be loath to attribute it to brilliant defense strategy.
As a side note -- I'd like to give a big FDL shout-out to the good folks at Politics TV for doing such remarkable work around the trial and shooting our end-of-day wrap-ups. It has really added a wonderful dimension to our trial coverage. We can't thank them enough.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Shout out to Jane, brava!
woo hoo FDL, PoliticsTV, Jane, Emptywheel, Jeralyn . . .
I heart Politics TV. Actually I’m jonesin ….
Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn !
Hey Jane,
Do you have anything to add about the jury Valentine stunt today? Did Walton, Fitz or Team Libby seem alarmed? Did you get the sense that this behavior was par for the course or left folks feeling uneasy?
gosh, I wonder where he learned that?
oooooh the black suit. love it.
is that Peter Zeidenberg?
As a side note — I’d like to give a big FDL shout-out to the good folks at Politics TV for doing such remarkable work around the trial and shooting our end-of-day wrap-ups. It has really added a wonderful dimension to our trial coverage. We can’t thank them enough.
Indeed! *Clapping hands and whistling in recognition*!
The current NYT The Defense Rests article makes some interesting quotes which I did not pick up in the previous live-blogging.
and a rebuke to Team Libby
The first two paragraphs seem to indicate little if any reliance on the memory defense will be permitted.
Cheney will not be testifying to confirm that Libby spoke to him after the Russert conversation when Libby related what Russert supposedly said about Valerie Plame. I wonder if it is legally permissible for the prosecution to draw attention to that non-confirmation with pointed question: Why did not Cheney confirm what Libby said to him about Russert’s conversation? Was it because Cheney would have to perjure himself to do that? The prosecution cannot ask the jury to draw inferences based on Libby’s 5th amendment right not to testify, but perhaps inferences are permitted about the non-testimony of another witness?
dab from CT @
4
Both Walton and Fitz were laughing. The whole courtroom was. I have to disagree with the observation that it made people uncomfortable. The perception may have been different in the courtroom, but on the closed-circuit TV I saw both Walton and Fitzgerald rather mirthful at the spectacle.
Yep: Zeidenberg.
1,436 DAYS AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hamsher and the firepup Patriots:
Jane, Marcy and Jeralyn ROCK!!!
Thanx Janie, your work on this site and specifically at this trial is an act of citizenship that is deserving of the Medal of Freedom.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE BASTARDS AIN’T DONE YET!!
Apologies if someone already pointed this link out, but I thought people here would appreciate this Onion infographic. (The second thing listed isn’t even funny — but I wonder if this was put online before today’s testimony. If it was online before this afternoon, it’s actually eerie):
http://www.theonion.com/conten.....ibby_trial
I’ll say this about the Valentine’s day stunt. First, this jury has spent a LOT of time together, eating breakfast and lunch together, meeting at their undisclosed location for their ride to the courthouse, and then waiting in the jury room for the endless endless conferences. But they’re not supposed to talk about the case. They’ve probably become quite chummy so the stunt itself is probably not a concern.
All I could see in the media room was Ted Wells’ and Reggie Walton’s face. These are men who know what to expect in a trial. And it was crystal clear neither had any idea what this meant.
Jane mentioned Jeralyn’s focus group comment…that’s a testament to how managed someone like Wells believes he can make a trial. But this was something he had no experience on how to read, none. It was pure mystification on his face.
Jane, just a quick Happy Valentine’s Day. I am looking forward to this eve’s video. Much love for what you have, and for being who you are! xxooo
I just don’t want Jane to leave town before I can meet her. ‘Specially since I live within walking distance of Tryst. Just sayin’
Jame, there’s no way to thank you guys enough. What you have done with the Libby trial breaks entirely new journalistic ground. And make no mistake about it, you are the journalists there.
I was hoping to be in DC for closing arguments but, alas, have to do some work in Canada. But, with your work shoring up american democracy, I may at least stop wanting to just move up there :-)
Thank you all.
Congratulations, Jane and all of the FDL people who have made the liveblogging and clearcut analysis possible.
I eagerly look forward to the instructions the jury receives, as well as closing arguments.
Thank you again for all of your hard work!
> Thus instead of launching a more plausible,
> “everybody makes mistakes” defense (as Jeralyn
> has noted would be a much easier sell to a
> jury) the defense has gone for broadside
> attacks against anyone who contradicted him.
That’s not really Libby’s call though is it? I could see a top-rank professional such as Wells discussing strategies with the client, and even offering the client a menu to choose from, but I can’t see him agreeing to undertake a strategy he believes to have a significant chance of losing.
Or is that what happens in these cases? Can the defendent’s ego override the defense counsel’s judgement? I mean, I discuss important decisions with my doctor but in the end I trust his judgement…
Cranky
Thanks Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn, Swopa, Arianna and all the other livebloggers out there. You all are amazing.
I have your book Marcy, and am looking forward to reading it when I have a spare afternoon. But right now, I’m looking REALLY forward to seeing today’s video recap! Thank you, PoliticsTV!
I have a question for any one of the crack FDL team who’s been in the courtroom:
On his broadcast tonight KO had a piece about all the jurors donning red shirts and wishing everyone a Happy Valentine’s Day - all but one juror, that is. They described her as sour and said she was a museum curator or something.
What do you guys think about this? Could she be a danger to hang the jury? Anybody have any special impressions of her from seeing her throughout the trial in the courtroom (or maybe you don’t want to talk about individual jurors?)?
Anyway, Keith and David Shuster have got me worried about this one…
Thank you, Jane Hamsher, for providing us with this extraordinary window into the Libby trial. (Present at the creation of a new media paradigm, etc.)
You assembled a terrific team and provided the world a peek into the black heart of the treason at the center of this MalAdministration.
Thank you.
PS Thanks also for the David Schuster pic.
oh, so funny about focus groups on Cheney. I sure thought it seemed odd that the defense stated they worked hard to prepare him, and then they had no interest in putting him on the stand. I figured public perception of him had to play a role. One of his little scowls, or his sarcastic and impolite responses, and the jury will like him even less.
The only strategy I could imagine they would have tried with a Cheney testimony is to go with the “poor Libby works for an asshole, and he has to do so much to please this asshole, it’s likely he might have forgotten some minor details”. I didn’t see it as likely to help Libby. And, I sure don’t think Deadeye Dick wanted to be on the stand.
Thanks for tracking down the backstory.
Okay - I feel much better about it now. It really helps to have folks there on the ground who can relay what “really” happened.
Jane - thanks so much for pulling all this together and being there. I hope you are taking care of yourself, though.
For Brigade of Liberal Bloggers, the Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder
The perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, has drawn every major news organization in the country to the federal courthouse in Washington. But none has fielded a bigger team — or was more openly crushed by the defense decision this week not to put Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby on the stand — than Firedoglake.com.
more
SCOTT SHANE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....r=homepage
Since I had the day off today (level 2 snow emergency), I finally had time to sit down and really put some thought into “Blogroll Amnesty Day“, and the issues it raised for me. Click my name if you’re interested. Not wanting to pick a blogfight, but this issue is pretty important to me, and the post goes into detail about why it does.
The Defense Rests
From what?
Jane, just wanted to thank all folks for the coverage. I wasn’t there during the day, but I appreciated the video summaries.
1. With respect to a plea, is there any indication that one was even available? Given the charges, any plea would in effect have to have been for complete and total human consciousness concerning Chimpco, otherwise it would be, or appear to be, rewarding the crime itself. And maybe Scooter couldn’t deliver that even if he wanted to.
2. The great man idea. I’m pretty confident stating that I’ve had a lot more opportunity to observe (and interact with) the “high and/or mighty” on trial than most people here. I’ve never understood their equinimity/non-chalance from indictment through (usually) conviction. But, if i had to guess, I would actually attribute it to the fact, having thought they would get away with the crime (most criminals do), they figured they would would win a trial - i.e. a con man is always a con man, regardless of the scenario. I don’t know Libby, and maybe he really thinks he is a great man, or innocent, or even if guilty he still did the right thing. But I doubt it.
everhopeful @ 20
She’s in her 70’s probably, a real character, a bit elitist, a bit liberal, she has a PhD, and I just would guess she was not feeling the need to dance to the junior high teacher’s class activity.
The math teacher is very outgoing and likes to work a crowd, and he’s been a jury foreman before. He’s the one who made the statement to the court, and I’m betting this was his idea. He’s probably lining himself up to be foreman again.
While the curator is her own woman, and no dummy (if a bit. . . eccentric), I wouldn’t read anything into it. There’s just no way to know.
Pachacutec @ 10
also handsome…
speaking of handsome, any Murray Waas stories?
This one’s for Teddy:
Shuster has very, very hairy hands, the back of his hands. Very werewolf. Very much the bear underneath all that teevee shaving.
Thought you’d like to know, Teddy. David, if you read this, please forgive me if you see me there for closing statements!
I await the verdict.
Love it
Evil Parallel Universe @ 28
Laws are invented for the little people. To the great and the good, the law is just an occasional inconvenience. Especially when they can just say “pardon me” at the end of the day, as it were.
Pach @ 29: Thank you very much - I feel better now…
And……
Get over the t-shirts. It is meaningless. I’m not saying that as part of the appeal that they won’t allege juror misconduct of some kind - it is often alleged and almost never gains any traction (and I’m talking about accusations of jurors sleeping with each other, sleeping during deliberations (though not with each other in the jury room), leaving spouses for another juror). Seriously, it is common.
And, if if you must speculate (and you may) as to which side it would help, it isn’t the defense (the defense is rarely helped by anything that happens in court - I realize I keep saying this, but it happens to be true). Think of it this way - if the jurors were thinking acquittal it doesn’t make sense that they would be so cheery or thanking the court for the great field trip in civic duty they just wasted 2-3 weeks of their lives on.
Math teachers are OK. Now that I think about it, teachers in general, are very OK. I’m biased.
Lawyer guesses for Salon: Fred Thompson and Barbara Comstock
Great job guys. did youtube get the video? Mine says no longer available….er to quote rosanna rosanadana on edit,,, nevermind. great job now off to see the video.
Mary @ 38
Don’t understand
Iowa Democrat @ 39: Yeah, I just got the same “video no longer available” message.
As someone who recently spent over 5 hours in a dentist’s chair, I can say I enjoyed that more than I enjoy DeadEye Dick-bag.
Whoa, live from the PlameCouch!
You have to find a way to continue the Politics TV videos after the trial! This is really great, groundbreaking stuff — I’ve been glued to the trial coverage from the start. I hope your Pay Pal button has been clicking away (I’ve done it twice so far). You should also consider a subscription button, if that wouldn’t cause you any headaches.
So am I the only one who thinks that Ted Wells bears a striking resemblence to the young and dashing(as dashing as a dictator can be) Saddam Hussein of the late 70’s and early 80’s?
I mean this in no way to impugn Wells, it is just whenver I see him I picture Saddam firing his rifle and wearing his Kossack hat.
-GSD
The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A. Only sour note was this:
Marcy would differ, I think.
I’m busy typing out resumes and cover letters these days but I make it a point to put on Hardball and The Mighty Olberman with the sound off until David Shuster comes on. Then I stop what I’m doing and listen to his nightly trial updates. I love that guy.
And that hair! Soooooo cute.
Ahem.
(cough)
Good job, David.
Markinsanfran - That’s bullshit. The law is the law, and little people sometimes get acquitted and the high and mighty usually go to jail. The reverse is true also.
Seriously, what high profile person on trial are you referring to who the “rigged” system let off? I’m not saying that all those of position and/or power are conicted, they’re not.
And, if you think about it, all those high priced criminal defense lawyers aren’t representing the “little people,” they’re representing the rich and/or powerful, and the vast majority of those people who are paying those high legal bills are going to jail.
Perhaps it is your definition of “crime.” Are you talking about crimes actually on the books, or crimes that you think should be on the books and for which the rich and/or powerful could then be charged?
musicsleuth @ 44
I think Pach’s post-trial assignment is to work out how our community wants to make subscriptions work at FDL.
And Pach: {{ whew }}
LOVE that picture of Fitz - is it me or does he look kinda happy?
My take, as an artist. Was the non-Valentine shirt-wearing curator wearing black? I am a total snob about some things, and the shirt, I don’t think so. As part of a team thingy, but probably, most likely, notsomuch.
We just are not gonna go for the Valentine-garb thing.
Aesthetically, holiday clothes? No. Not. Gonna. Do. It. Moreso does NOT mean we are going for Admin-pap. I say, don’t read much into it, as far as being soft on BS.
Art people? Not conventional.
Mary @ 38
Uh, neither go back to Watergate, AFAIK.
The Watergate reference, I think, is to Leonard Garment.
musicsleuth @ 44
Yes - hopefully after the trial FDL can set up a subscription option. I, for one, would be happy to give a set amount every month.
Fundraisers would also be great
I’m going to run a fundraising options/models survey first. Look for it very soon. We want community input.
Did anyone see the guy from PoliticsTV.com on the presser today? W totally knew Politics. He asked if Gregor from NYT liked Politics.com. I guess W’s been reading/watching FDL.
Fitz should consider shaving his head and getting an earring. Then maybe a leather jacket. Then maybe . . . Never mind.
Too bad Laura wasn’t subpoenaed. As in “fly on the wall” testimony. Martha Mitchell, where are you?
jeffreyw @ 46
Personally, I find it woefully incomplete… almost as if his best material was left on the cutting-room floor (or the newspaper equivalent)…
Pachacutec @ 31
Hey, today is Lupercalia, or Love Your Werewolf Day!
I’m sorry, I have real issues with Jeralyn’s take on almost everything. I wish that Marcy and Jane had more time to comment.
Can Jeralyn really believe that Libby is not testifying because the defense didn’t get statements from prosecution witnesses in time???
Great coverage FEL. Happy Valentines!!
How much you wanna bet that Wells will try somehow to “backdoor” the “memory defense” into his closing arguments? If Wells does (especially in a blatant manner) will Walton hold him in contempt? Could it cause a mistrial?
Plus, the Salon article about a Libby mentor suggesting that he cooperate with the prosecutors in exchange for some plea deal suggests to me that Libby believes he will receive a presidential pardon if the jury finds him guilty. Hey, pardons worked in the Iran/Contra scandal, and to some of these Republicans the outing of a covert CIA agent protecting America from WMD proliferation is (in their minds) a minor matter and well worthy of a presidential “get out of jail free” pardon.
Unless, of course, Libby changes his plea to not guilty for reasons of insanity for what he and his fellow Republicans did back in 2003/2004. I might even buy it. That Libby and his Republicans were temporarily insane when divulging to whoever would listen the highly classified identity of a CIA agent charged with protecting our nation from terrorists getting their hands on WMD.
Nahhh. They’re still insane. There’s nothing temporary about it.
Video no longer available.
Got another link?
BG,
The guy from Politico was Mike Allen, from Time Magazine who is clearly Karl Rove’s newest gay lover or at least Jeff Gannon’s replacement.
Words literally go from Rove’s lips to Allen’s laptop. With little in between.
Mike Allen is a taller, balder Judy Miller.
-GSD
“With him not testifying, I think the landscape has changed . . . significantly,” Walton said outside the presence of the jury. “I don’t think it would be appropriate in any way” for jurors to hear about Libby’s briefings unless prosecutors can quiz the defendant about their significance to him, Walton said.
I’m telling ya, Libby needs a visit from the Ghosts of Fitzmas Past, Present and Future so he can make amends before its too late ;-)
Swopa @ 58
Hell you’re comparing it to blogs. I meant as a newspaper article.
The sad thing is, is that Bush, Cheney and Rove are going to skate.
GSD: Mike Allen is a taller, balder Judy Miller.
EEEEWW. . .Figures it would not be our politics..
jeffreyw @ 66
No, what I’m trying to say is that I wasn’t quoted, even though I was the first Team FDLer he interviewed last week. :)
Pach, I’ve got some ideas about possible fundraisers, when you get to that point. Put me on your list to contact.
What a surprise:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States, a former senior government official said on Wednesday.
Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, likened the proposal to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but “the administration rejected the overture.”
Oklahoma kiddo @
67
The good thing is they will be skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Not a good place to be with all the hot air in Washington.
-GSD
Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.
Twisted Martini @ 70
There will be a text field for other ideas/suggestions in the survey. Yay!
melior @ 62
Refresh and it comes back.
FDL rocks! Just posted on the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02.....r=homepage
*Light bulb goes on*
Ahhhhhhh…
OKk: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said. . .
Libby moment?
The toobz seems to be intermittently clogged tonight. The direct link to tonight’s edition of PoliticsTV is:
http://www.youtube.com/v/-PzGHn-bcs8
Blank Kludge @ 73
Nothing of the kind came out in voir dire, but I strongly doubt it. She struck me as quite secular.
Blank Kludge @ 73
JW? Not likely. Sorry, art people, not in any way.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 57
Personally, I’m hoping for a break-out moment for Elaine Chao: married to new Minority Leader McConnell with her BushCo boot on America’s workers since 2001.
Sing, Elaine!
I’m also eager to pre-order Harriet Miers’ tell-all, when it’s ready….
Fitz to Cheney: When you wrote “due to the incompetence of others” who were you referring to?
Dick: To the CIA, for letting the 16 words in.
Fitz: I am curious… Considering where it has gotten you so far, why the hell do you still insist on trying to fuck with the CIA?
GSD @ 72
Possible benefit of global warming? ;0)
jeffreyw @ 77
My dream of forcing the NY Times to print the word “Swopa” goes tragically unrequited…
bg @
81
Just an idea….
Otherwise, it does have a Grisham feel…weird. Or, means nothing except what it is. T-shirts for all minus one.
scarecrow @ 75
Thank you!
dab from CT @ 60
dab — I understood this a little differently: Wells claimed they were originally planning to use Libby/Cheney, but after they got the statements of what the prosecution witnesses would say, in late December, they reconsidered whether they would need Libby/Cheney — to me, the implication was that the statements from prosecution witnesses were not as damaging or strong as the defense originally assumed/feared, and the actual performance on the stand confirmed that judgment.
Blank Kludge @
73
Good point! With so many 70yo JW art curators out there, it should have been obvious to me. LOL.
BTW, if you would like to know what all that money does buy, it is focus groups if not outright mock trials with people off the street paid to be jurors and firm lawyers being in effect a practice squad playing Walton, Fitz, etc. Well’s and the others would play themselves.
Can it be helpful? Sure. But if you need to pay a focus group to understand that calling Shooter isn’t a good idea, then you really are in trouble and are just wasting money. A lawyer working pro bono would come to the same decision for free.
Carl Bernstein lays into the Bush Whitehouse.
Misinformation ministers.
-GSD
For the sake of argument:
Scooter beats the raps on “reasonable doubt.”
What then? (Beyond the obvious predictable aggregate ad nauseum wingnut rhetorical embolism).
Fitz gets the axe at the behest of Torture Boy?
Cheney sees a green light to pop the clutch on Iran ASAP?
???
_
Swopa @
85
What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?
BobbyG @ 92
You just ticked off my worst fears, in a nutshell. Lord, I hope not; but any doubt might be considered reasonable, and the domino effect you’ve described is exactly what I fear.
Are we to conclude that Libby is falling on the sword provided him by Cheney? And will his wife and children, and perhaps other family members be soon ‘gainfully employed’ at some Republican ‘think’ tank. Isn’t that how they do it? And by the way, where does Libby derive the funding for his legal expenses?
It’s a sandwich.
Here’s why the US AG’s firings by Bush and Abu Gonzo matter:
Accused briber Brent Wilkes speaks.
“There’s no need to remind the San Diego community that these are the same prosecutors routinely accused of prosecutorial misconduct. The office has been led by a dismissed U.S. Attorney who has shown bad judgment, has previously pursued vendettas, and has set the tone at the top of an organization accused of witness tampering and manufacturing evidence. It is no accident, nor is it a surprise, that the indictments were rushed to the press 48 hours before her forced departure.”
Gonzales, worst AG ever.
-GSD
It doesn’t seem relevant to the case anymore, but from what I’ve been able to glean from the trial the slam against Cooper’s sloppy note-taking sounds undeserved. Jeralyn pushes Cooper’s “note-taking was filled with incomplete sentences and who consistently typed the wrong characters and suggested his current recollection is more reliable than his dubious notes” seems not true.
It sure sounded like his notes were scanned by optical scanning reader and the Defense was using machine-generated copies of his notes. Repeated occurrences of the wrong character is a common side effect of OCR (optical character recognition). Of course, if Team Fitz let it go unchallenged either shame on them or they felt it wasn’t worthwhile to delve into it, implying the Defense case is not very strong.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 95
Wingnut welfare at its finest.
Iran will be very front page news soon.
The power to change our country belongs to people like us. This trial is a great story, but it’s not the key the the future.
That power belongs to the Roots. Don’t ask the court to do the work of politics, the work of the people.
GSD @ 91
I read the article earlier today. He has to understand that his buddy Woodward has aided and abetted all the lies and misinformation.
Jeralyn - now I can see how you could bring yourself to defend Timothy McVeigh - you’re 100% defense lawyer and you can’t help but try to convince yourself and everyone else that every defendant is innocent. If I ever get indicted I hope I can afford you, but in this case, neither your Cheney gravitas argument nor your Libby motive argument does a thing for me, no matter how objective I try to be.
This spin that Libby’s motive isn’t sufficiently clear … Hello? He lied to obstruct and delay the investigation in order to protect himself, to protect Cheney and others, and to protect Bush’s reelection chances. That was his motive and he succeeded brilliantly. The latter two goals have already been accomplished, and barring some bizarre and ironic twist of fate, he’ll be pardoned to complete the hat trick. If that’s not BLINDINGLY … DEAFENINGLY … SLAP-IN-THE-FACE clear to everyone and anyone anywhere near that courthouse, then Fitz has either screwed up terribly or been bought off — and as disgusted with him as I am, I don’t think either those is even a remote possibility.
My prediction of juror sentiment at this juncture: Lock Libby up and throw away the key. And disbar Wells & Co. for gaming the process.
Dab,
My impression was that was one reason why he was chiming in so forcefully.
-GSD
Scarecrow@88 - You may be quite correct as to the nature and root source of the spiel made by Wells to soften the tone and calm the waters with Walton, but I can almost guarantee you that the real reason they did not put on Libby and Cheney is fear that it would exacerbate the mess they already had. I would also hazard a guess that, as it came time to fish or cut bait, that Cheney, on advice of counsel, was NOT a very willing witness.
Renee @ 25
“I’m really inclined to stroke someone’s ego, especially when that person already has way more people willing ” on what you cited, add “not” I think! And you make a good point about the obnoxiousness of that ad.
(i’m from central Ohio myself, so “hi!!”)
bobbyg - Anything can happen - it really isn’t the way to bet. But I think they’ve already lost. Public perception will be what it will be, and most of the world will probably agree with the idea it was rigged. I don’t think it matters how the CM spins it or how loudly the ghouls howl, one way or the other. Chimpco is unredeemable. I also don’t agree with the idea that the trial is delaying any unilateral actions by Chimpco. I don’t think they care - in the same way they don’t care about majority public opinion or anything else.
You might think the above too optimistic, but I really don’t think the CM or the ghouls matter that much anymore to the majority of public opinion concerning Chimpco and its enablers.
jeffreyw @ 96
Kudos to the Earl of Swopa. May his luck at the gaming tables require more and various sundry creations. And, may our modern Swopa’s estimations and suppositions concerning the outcome of this trial be fortuitous, as well.