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?

has gone for broadside attacks against anyone who contradicted him

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.

Mr. Libby denied under oath that he had passed information to reporters about Ms. Wilson, and his lawyers have put forward as a part of his defense that he was too preoccupied with the crush of vital national security issues to have remembered any conversation about Ms. Wilson or her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador.

Judge Walton said his ruling meant that the chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., would not be able to make that argument to the jury. Mr. Wells will be permitted to tell the jury that Mr. Libby had “a lot on his plate,” Judge Walton said. But because Mr. Libby is not testifying, Mr. Wells cannot argue that those issues were of greater importance in Mr. Libby’s mind “as compared to the issue of Valerie Plame and Ambassador Wilson.”

and a rebuke to Team Libby

Judge Walton said he “believed all along in the process that Mr. Libby was going to testify” and that his lawyers were now “playing games with the process.”

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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…

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

Yep: Zeidenberg.

also handsome…
speaking of handsome, any Murray Waas stories?

PS Thanks also for the David Schuster pic.

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.

… and I just would guess she was not feeling the need to dance to the junior high teacher’s class activity.

Love it

Evil Parallel Universe @ 28

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.

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

Lawyer guesses for Salon: Fred Thompson and Barbara Comstock

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:

For blogs, the Libby trial marks a courthouse coming of age. It is the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media, said Robert A. Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association. Mr. Cox negotiated access for the bloggers.

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

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.

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

Lawyer guesses for Salon: Fred Thompson and Barbara Comstock

Uh, neither go back to Watergate, AFAIK.

The Watergate reference, I think, is to Leonard Garment.

musicsleuth @ 44

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.

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

The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A.

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

PS Thanks also for the David Schuster pic.

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!

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

jeffreyw @ 46

The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A.

Personally, I find it woefully incomplete… almost as if his best material was left on the cutting-room floor (or the newspaper equivalent)…

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

Swopa @ 58

jeffreyw @ 46

The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A.

Personally, I find it woefully incomplete… almost as if his best material was left on the cutting-room floor (or the newspaper equivalent)…

Hell you’re comparing it to blogs. I meant as a newspaper article.

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 sad thing is, is that Bush, Cheney and Rove are going to skate.

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

Pach, I’ve got some ideas about possible fundraisers, when you get to that point. Put me on your list to contact.

There will be a text field for other ideas/suggestions in the survey. Yay!

melior @ 62

Video no longer available.

Got another link?

Refresh and it comes back.

FDL rocks! Just posted on the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..r=homepage

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. :)

*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

Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.

Nothing of the kind came out in voir dire, but I strongly doubt it. She struck me as quite secular.

Blank Kludge @ 73

Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.

JW? Not likely. Sorry, art people, not in any way.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 57

Too bad Laura wasn’t subpoenaed. As in “fly on the wall” testimony. Martha Mitchell, where are you?

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

Oklahoma kiddo @
67

The sad thing is, is that Bush, Cheney and Rove are going to skate.

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

Possible benefit of global warming? ;0)

jeffreyw @ 77

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. :)

*Light bulb goes on*

Ahhhhhhh…

My dream of forcing the NY Times to print the word “Swopa” goes tragically unrequited…

bg @
81

Blank Kludge @ 73

Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.

JW? Not likely. Sorry, art people, not in any way.

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

Refresh and it comes back.

Thank you!

dab from CT @ 60

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???

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

Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.

Good point! With so many 70yo JW art curators out there, it should have been obvious to me. LOL.

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.

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

My dream of forcing the NY Times to print the word “Swopa” goes tragically unrequited…

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

BobbyG @ 92

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?

???
_

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?

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

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

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?

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

Carl Bernstein lays into the Bush Whitehouse.

Misinformation ministers.

-GSD

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

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

It’s a sandwich.

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.

Pachacutec @ 31

PS Thanks also for the David Schuster pic.

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!

Hirsute is good. Very good.

Pach @ 101 – I actually agree with you on that. Just make sure that you aren’t the third wheel – take the center.

GSD @ 97

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.”

Um, Brent apparently thinks the best defense is a good offense.

If witness tampering and manufacturing evidence were involved in the Cunningham case, why did he plead guilty?

What this will do, fortunately, is piss off the AUSAs to no end, as they have been damned by association with Lam, by Wilkes’ lights.

Bravado, or stupidity with a dash of arrogance, perhaps?

Time will tell….

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.

Thanks, obsessed. I’ve been trying to be open to Jeralyn’s perspective but it just seems so far from reality that I just can’t buy it. Having been married into a trial lawyer family, I understand that defense lawyers (particularly criminal defense) are a very different breed.

Listening to (or reading) Jeralyn really makes me squirm. I would have been much happier if Jeralyn had been asked to give her opinion and then Marcy or Jane had given their contrasting perspectives. Instead 2/3rds of the video is Jeralyn’s rather warped wrap up of the case. (The bit about Well’s sincere explanation as to why Cheney and Libby weren’t testifying (cause they didn’t get statements until December) is just crap and Marcy could barely keep from laughing out loud.)

jeffreyw @
96

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

It’s a sandwich.

no it’s not – it’s an insignia you find on the side of your shoe!

Left winger 108 -

Irrelevant to the charges. Moreover, Fitz said at the outset that her job status was “classified.”

But, of course, YOU know better than an experienced federal prosecutor with a stellar CV.

LOL.
_

GSD @ 63

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

How did PoolBoi’s partner in the new venture Politico.com get into the PrezPresser today, anyhow? Surely not riding on his Newsweek cred.

everhopeful @ 50

LOVE that picture of Fitz – is it me or does he look kinda happy?

WHAT picture? And what picture of Zeidenberg?

Swopa @
58

jeffreyw @ 46

The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A.

Personally, I find it woefully incomplete… almost as if his best material was left on the cutting-room floor (or the newspaper equivalent)…

Oh man was it. Such as my comparison between the coverage they had here and the coverage they did on Lewinsky. Jane and I are picking up the stuff on the cutting room floor and turning it into a book…

The defense rests – and all that donated defense money did not help scooter at all.

My prediction/observation: Libby, if willing to accept looking at any deal, will do so this weekend so the deal is struck before he is convicted by a jury of his peers.

Evil Parallel Universe @ 36

Get over the t-shirts. It is meaningless……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.

I have to agree. The Enron jury dresssed up repeatedly, and ended up convicting both Lay and Skilling.

jeffreyw @ 96

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

It’s a sandwich.

obsessed @ 103

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.

why are you disgusted with Fitz?

TeddySanFran @ 115

GSD @ 63

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

How did PoolBoi’s partner in the new venture Politico.com get into the PrezPresser today, anyhow? Surely not riding on his Newsweek cred.

Lambert at Corrente nails Mike Allen perfectly…

http://www.correntewire.com/bu…..democratic

I don’t interpret Jeralyn to be saying Libby had no motive to lie. Rather she’s suggesting that the evidence actually presented on motive was not that strong or clear — I think the case is there, but it will take Fitz to repackage it in closing arguments to make it clear enough to the jury — we have to remember that from reading Murry Waas and TNH and FDL, many here know many more details than were actually presented in a case that was narrowly focused on just the lying/obstruction.

JoyB @
116

everhopeful @ 50

LOVE that picture of Fitz – is it me or does he look kinda happy?

WHAT picture? And what picture of Zeidenberg?

There originally was a picture of Fitz and Zeidenberg up top – before the video of the Ladies of the Lake was ready…

Swopa @
85

jeffreyw @ 77

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. :)

*Light bulb goes on*

Ahhhhhhh…

My dream of forcing the NY Times to print the word “Swopa” goes tragically unrequited…

Jane’s holding out hope that the picture will be in–in a past article, the NYT put up the pics the following day. She said he got a great view of your hands.

Woo hands. Given rampant rumors about Shuster’s hands (see above), you’ll jump right to the top of the mediasphere as the sexiest hands alive.

everhopeful @ 123

Thank you! Well, we GOTTA go with our Ladies of the Lake!

emptywheel @ 117

Swopa @
58

jeffreyw @ 46

The Scott Shane article referenced above was very good, I’d give it an A.

Personally, I find it woefully incomplete… almost as if his best material was left on the cutting-room floor (or the newspaper equivalent)…

Oh man was it. Such as my comparison between the coverage they had here and the coverage they did on Lewinsky. Jane and I are picking up the stuff on the cutting room floor and turning it into a book…

Soon I hope

Ed*ard Teller @ 89

Blank Kludge @
73

Just wondering if the 70 yr old art curator might be of the Jehovah Witness faith? Most wouldn’t observe any holiday, iirc.

Good point! With so many 70yo JW art curators out there, it should have been obvious to me. LOL.

She’s angling for the first interview — that’s my guess. Of all the jurors (regardless of the verdict) she’s my choice to ask “WTF?”

jeffreyw @ 96

What is a “Swopa” anyway? Is that one of those cool surfer nicknames, like Moondoggy?

It’s a sandwich.

ummm…can I have a bite?

Oh man was it. Such as my comparison between the coverage they had here and the coverage they did on Lewinsky. Jane and I are picking up the stuff on the cutting room floor and turning it into a book…

A new emptywheel book! And Jane can use her contacts to turn it into a script…

I think we may have a new revenue source for Pach.

JoyB @
106

(i’m from central Ohio myself, so “hi!!”)

Hi back atcha. :)

>why are you disgusted with Fitz?

1) because no one was indicted before the 2004 election

2) see #1

3) because rove wasn’t indicted

4) see #1

I noticed during the FDL video wrap that after Jerilynn finished, she nodded repeatedly at Marcy’s remarks on the close. So while she may give us the defense possibility, she was agreeing with Marcy.

bmaz @ 105

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.

I agree with this. I was just summarizing what i thought the live-blog explained earlier today. The defense’ real motive probably was driven by a belief that neither Cheney nor Libby could help and could easily have hurt, and there were tremedous risks for Cheney. I assumed they would only use Cheney if they were truly desperate — a belief they would surely lose unless the Vice President of the US pulled an Ollie North — an in your face defense with no apologies, in the hope they would convince at least one holdout to hold out.

My guess/fear now is that the defense believes it may have a real shot at acquittal, if their summation can hammer on the reasonable doubt by attacking the credibility/memory of each of the presecution witnesses, especially Russert — and each is/was vulnerable a bit. Is it enough? Dunno. But I’m worried and I think we should think through what happens if there is a complete acquittal, because i think the backlash from the right will be fierce.

Heh: re NYT. . .

Actually, two doctoral level business consultants, but I stayed away from the interview on the article, so Shane’s referring to Marcy.

emptywheel @ 126

Woo hands. Given rampant rumors about Shuster’s hands (see above), you’ll jump right to the top of the mediasphere as the sexiest hands alive.

Careful, there be dragons…George, meanwhile, bumps into a woman who tells him he has exquisite hands, and soon becomes a “hand model,” trying to avoid the fate of the world’s greatest hand model, a man who could have had any woman on Earth but fell in love with his own hand, and was not, as they say on “Seinfeld,” “master of his domain.”

Pachacutec @ 134

Heh: re NYT. . .

Actually, two doctoral level business consultants, but I stayed away from the interview on the article, so Shane’s referring to Marcy.

And I didn’t even think I told him about my PhD. Certainly didn’t tell him it had a lot more to do with journalism than it does with selling cars in Asia.

dab from CT @ 112

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.

Thanks, obsessed. I’ve been trying to be open to Jeralyn’s perspective but it just seems so far from reality that I just can’t buy it. Having been married into a trial lawyer family, I understand that defense lawyers (particularly criminal defense) are a very different breed.

Listening to (or reading) Jeralyn really makes me squirm. I would have been much happier if Jeralyn had been asked to give her opinion and then Marcy or Jane had given their contrasting perspectives. Instead 2/3rds of the video is Jeralyn’s rather warped wrap up of the case. (The bit about Well’s sincere explanation as to why Cheney and Libby weren’t testifying (cause they didn’t get statements until December) is just crap and Marcy could barely keep from laughing out loud.)

While I am hoping for a conviction, I have found Jerralyn’s observations and comments to be extremely valuable. She has an enormous amount of experience as a trial lawyer, and while we may not like the idea that Libby could be acquitted, it is a possibility. And I do not begrudge him his right to as fair a trial as he can get. He still has the right to a *legal* presumption of innocence until a jury makes a decision (even though he IS a crook and liar morally!). It is also worth mentioning that a trial is adversarial in nature. There has been a lot of speculating here as to what Fitz might have up his sleeve that we don’t know about. In other words, lawyers on both sides try to psyche out the opposition while appealing to the jury. That is what lawyers, whether defense or prosecution are supposed to do; they scheme and strategize to win. For that reason, Jeralyn’s insight has given us a clue into what might be behind the Defense strategy.

Actually, Jeralynn’s article has this:

To me, that’s the mojo Ted Wells and Bill Jeffress need to work in Libby’s closing. If they can get past that statement and drop their unproven claim of “I was left out to dry to save Karl Rove” from their closing argument and rise above trying to cast Libby as a victim, they have a chance.

Which appears after the high school civics class intro to criminal jurisprudence, which kind of appears to be more of a hedge, and is a big if.

I don’t have a blog, and I’m not willing to post my resume, but I’m gonna give you my opinion anyway:

1. Even if the defense gets to throw in the “set up” defense, the jury won’t care. He’s not on trial for getting set up, and if juries ever have sympathy on a defendant, for getting in over their head or being the only one dumb enough to get caught or stealing to feed their children, Scooter isn’t that defendant.

2. The idea that the jury will judge Scooter’s allegedly forgetful memory “against” any of the other witnesses memory misses a few key point: none of the witnesses had Scooter’s reasons to not forget (to focus on the Wilsons; the jury will find all these people basically conspiring to “get” Libby by failing to remember defies logic as well as the odds; but most saliently, the jury will find the witnesses testimony compelling b/c none of them are on trial for lying, and Scooter is, he is the defendant, and they’re going to assume he’s there for a reason. I realize that’s not civic class jurisprudence, but it is human nature.

Hey, he could walk, anything is possible, but the odds are really not in favor of that.

Love the videos every night. All of you have done an incredible job during the entire trial! Thanks so much!

Given the fact that it’s Valentine’s Day.. I’d like to exercise my prerogative to be a “male of the species” and say how great all of you look as newly found television icons ; ) Fitz’ Angels???? and Jane in particular.. mmmm.. what a hottie ; )

Each of you who have contributed to this outstanding coverage of the trial should be very proud that you have consistently outshined and outreported the mainstream media. Thanks, very much, for your efforts and personal sacrifice.

I’m sorry than Jane didn’t get to see Cheney squirm on the witness chair, but the rest of the country gains the benefit of not seeing him lying (as he consistently does) in a court of law.

The jury surely has a terrible task in sorting out all the information presented and keeping the timeline of who knew what, and said what to who. At least this citizen gained insight into what seems like a clear fact: Scooter knew from Cheney what Cheney’s objective was, remembered what he learned and what he did to carry out Cheney’s illegal and vengeful coverup of the program of disinformation carried out by the Office of VP and the rest of the White House. Hang-um high!

Ah, these business PhDs. Such a lefty lot.

I loved hearing from Jeralyn. It reminds me that the entire principle of constitutional law is at stake here. We can’t just lock him up, even if he tried to steal the country and out half the CIA to make W look like he was right.

Scooter needed the best defense he could get, and the people needed the best prosecutor. And the judge and jury will try to ensure that the constitution wins.

Jeralyn is what separates us from them.

Marcy – Do you think the defense can get a reversal on Russert’s affadavit to Judge Hogan that failed to list his FBI interview as evidentiary?

Oops. I forgot. You guys looked great sitting in a centrally heated apartment and not shivering outside.

I also want to say that I admire Jeralyn for representing McVeigh. One of the things she tried to do was to keep him off of death row, and as a person who ardently opposes the death penalty, I am glad that there are people like her out there fighting the good fight on that front.

As far as academic and professional credentials go, the bloggers at FDL are more accomplished, on average, than journalists at the Times or almost any other daily periodical one can name. I find the whole blogger credibility question to be hilarious when applied to FDL. You guys are the elite, period. And you are populist journalists in the tradition of the muckrakers who exposed industrial abuses in the early twentieth century. Elites, progressives, populists, journalists, and movement builders all in one. No wonder so many entrenched interests view you with fear and/or envy…

EW: Could have come from Jane. . . come to think of it, about either one of us. He did get the detail about our access wrong (NOT through Media Bloggers Association), so who knows?

Pachacutec @ 146

EW: Could have come from Jane. . . come to think of it, about either one of us. He did get the detail about our access wrong (NOT through Media Bloggers Association), so who knows?

Why is there this persistent and incorrect meme about FDL’s access? It’s through Arianna, right?

In case it hasn’t been mentioned, TRex is upstairs.

Evil Parallel Universe @ 138

2. The idea that the jury will judge Scooter’s allegedly forgetful memory “against” any of the other witnesses memory misses a few key point: none of the witnesses had Scooter’s reasons to not forget (to focus on the Wilsons; the jury will find all these people basically conspiring to “get” Libby by failing to remember defies logic as well as the odds; but most saliently, the jury will find the witnesses testimony compelling b/c none of them are on trial for lying, and Scooter is, he is the defendant, and they’re going to assume he’s there for a reason. I realize that’s not civic class jurisprudence, but it is human nature.

Hey, he could walk, anything is possible, but the odds are really not in favor of that.

Hannah’s testimony basically quashed the memory defence. He testified that Libby remembers concepts, but not their sources. Wilsons-wife-works-at-CIA is a concept, not a source, or a place in time. This notion that it-was-if-I-learned-it-as-new is not the expected response. The response should be, I have heard that before, but where?

He should have felt deja vu, not this is new.

TeddySanFran @ 147

Pachacutec @ 146

EW: Could have come from Jane. . . come to think of it, about either one of us. He did get the detail about our access wrong (NOT through Media Bloggers Association), so who knows?

Yep, though we had two passes through HuffPo and one through DKos. MBA had absolutely nothing to do with it any any point in time.
Why is there this persistent and incorrect meme about FDL’s access? It’s through Arianna, right?

My guess/fear now is that the defense believes it may have a real shot at acquittal, if their summation can hammer on the reasonable doubt by attacking the credibility/memory of each of the presecution witnesses, especially Russert — and each is/was vulnerable a bit. Is it enough? Dunno. But I’m worried and I think we should think through what happens if there is a complete acquittal, because i think the backlash from the right will be fierce.

I think we’ll all be nervous and concerned until the verdict is delivered. And I agree that if Libby is acquitted there will be huge backlash with horrible consequences.

Quite frankly, the way the “practice” of law is conducted is sometimes hard for me to comprehend. And perhaps my perspective is totally skewed – but I just don’t see how the evidence Fitz has put in place is weak, nor do I think the defense has been much of a defense.

Do you honestly believe that the reason why Libby & Cheney are not testifying is that the defense thinks that have a good shot at acquittal? That just blows my mind – but you’re a lawyer and I’m not.

Scarecrow@133 – I agree with your fear of the blowback from an acquittal; holy crap, would be a nightmare. Not so sure about the defense being particularly confident however; if its any comfort to you. I’ve done a lot of criminal defense and NO defense lawyer worth his salt is ever confident that reasonable doubt is going to carry the day. Irrespective of that, however, Wells certainly couldn’t feel that way here. I think Fitzgerald’s case is fairly strong. I also think Wells thinks he has problems and that is why he was pulling all the histrionics with trying to recall Russert and get the other stuff in that they were going round and round over away from the jury the last two days. He was furiously trying to expand his record for appeal, and, at least to my mind, his degree of beligerence in doing so showed a slight bit of desperation. He could have made the same record on these issues a lot easier if he was not so worked up.

I’m sure someone has already mentioned this impressive story now up at WaPo:

For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder
By SCOTT SHANE 55 minutes ago
Firedoglake.com has offered intensive trial coverage, using some six contributors in rotation

Congratulations team- great job.

Here in Hawaii, its still Valentines Day, so I want to wish all the ((((((FDL wahines)))))) (that’s Hawaiian for “women”) a super-happy Valentine’s Day!!! You’re all fabulous!!!

Aloha,
Bob in HI

I don’t buy Jeralyn’s conclusion that Fitz hasn’t made his case. Of course she has criminal trial experience, and I don’t (unless you count that marijuana dust up back in the 70’s) and she is actually there watching the trial (while I am reading Yahoo news and FDL).

Nevertheless, I think she’s off base, and here’s why. The Libby trial has a striking parallel to the OJ civil (not criminal) trial in that the single most important witness in that civil trial was the defendant himself, OJ. He had been deposed on video over many hours. Goldman’s lawyer Dan Petrocelli conducted several mock trials and actually had a hard time convincing some juries of OJ’s guilt until he had them focus on OJ’s own testimony. Everytime the jurors had to watch the video of OJ’s testimony, they reacted negatively to Simpson. When Petrocelli reorganized the mock trials so that OJ’s testimony was the centerpiece, the juries consistently came back for the plaintiff and against OJ.

Fitz has focused the jury on Libby and Libby’s testimony. Fitz’s case isn’t about Russert, Miller or anyone else. It’s about Libby. That Libby didn’t testify at trial on his own behalf is the death knell to his defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..40_pf.html

F: .. The need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Re-reading this, I do not believe Fitz is satisfied yet that he knows the truth. I really do believe that the Libby indictments were the first step. “We need to know the truth.”

bmaz @ 152

Scarecrow@133 – I agree with your fear of the blowback from an acquittal; holy crap, would be a nightmare. Not so sure about the defense being particularly confident however; if its any comfort to you. I’ve done a lot of criminal defense and NO defense lawyer worth his salt is ever confident that reasonable doubt is going to carry the day. Irrespective of that, however, Wells certainly couldn’t feel that way here. I think Fitzgerald’s case is fairly strong. I also think Wells thinks he has problems and that is why he was pulling all the histrionics with trying to recall Russert and get the other stuff in that they were going round and round over away from the jury the last two days. He was furiously trying to expand his record for appeal, and, at least to my mind, his degree of beligerence in doing so showed a slight bit of desperation. He could have made the same record on these issues a lot easier if he was not so worked up.

Martha Stewarts lawyers went that route, and we all remember how well that turned out.

Pectopah – I agree with that too. I think the prosecution witnesses were good, and I thought the cross by the pros was good also.

If I really wanted to speculate (and don’t see why I shouldn’t), the reason there were no further defense witnesses is b/c of the prosecutions cross on Hannah. And I don’t think the defense cross was that good cause they didn’t have a lot to work with – typos causing misremembering?

Hey. I could be wrong, but I’ll still be omniscient, I’ll always be omniscient.

bmaz @ 152, I agree. Wells is desperate, but Libby more so. I don’t know about criminal trials, but in civil cases you rarely win in closing. I can’t see this case being any different. Fitz will take an hour or so to give the jury a concise, hard hitting summary of Libby’s lies and why they should convict. He will refer back to all the grandstanding Wells did in his opening and show the jury how Wells failed to produce anything approaching what was promised. He will sum up the case in a few sharp sentences and sit down. Wells will start strong and then probably ramble on as he did in his opening. Minds will wander and eyes will start to roll . . . . Regardless how Wells finishes, Fitz has the last shot at the jury and he will drive the stake into the defense. He will simply refer to Libby’s own testimony.

If Scooter does get off without taking the stand in his own defense, I expect he will launch a search for “the real perjurer” on the country’s golf courses.

Seemed that it went pretty well for the prosecution- the closing arguments may help pull everything together- won’t probably have to wait long for the verdict..

Fitz is gonna have a lot of egg on his face if he doesn’t win- I’m sure he gave it his very best shot- I suspect he’ll win.

stingray @ 156

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..40_pf.html

F: .. The need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Re-reading this, I do not believe Fitz is satisfied yet that he knows the truth. I really do believe that the Libby indictments were the first step. “We need to know the truth.”

And this:

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.

Stingray at 152. Amen to that; we need to know the truth, and those who covered up the truth need to face Fitz, er, ah, I mean justice.

melior at 160. PRICELESS!

radiofreewill @ 142

Marcy – Do you think the defense can get a reversal on Russert’s affadavit to Judge Hogan that failed to list his FBI interview as evidentiary?

No, it really is tangential to Russert’s testimony,

I think a reason the prosecution lost the OJ case, is they made it too long and tedious.

Fitzgerald has been concise on presentation and cross. The jury will appreciate that. It allows them to hone in on what is important to the prosecution’s case.

The defence on the other hand may have alienated the jury with long winded crosses with no obvious intent.

Remember the old adage: keep it simple. While we wish Fitz would be more agressive and really skewer witnesses, that would be counter productive to his goal.

Pachacutec @ 146

… He did get the detail about our access wrong (NOT through Media Bloggers Association), so who knows?

But then he got this right:

‘Compared with the sober, neutral drudges of the establishment press, the bloggers are class clowns and crusaders, satirists and scolds.’

I don’t mind being called that.

Pectopah @ 166

I think a reason the prosecution lost the OJ case, is they made it too long and tedious.

Fitzgerald has been concise on presentation and cross. The jury will appreciate that. It allows them to hone in on what is important to the prosecution’s case.

The defence on the other hand may have alienated the jury with long winded crosses with no obvious intent.

Remember the old adage: keep it simple. While we wish Fitz would be more agressive and really skewer witnesses, that would be counter productive to his goal.

Fitz has been the model of restraint. He’s not only subscribed to the KISS (keep it simple stupid) theory, he is also following the “less is more” approach. In contrast, Wells aggressive, lengthy omnivorous approach is annoying, wasteful and ultimately condescending. If I’m on that jury I’m going to like the lawyer who respects my time, who puts in a clean, no nonsense case. Team Libby’s case is bloated . . . .

Pectopah – Most attorneys I know think that the OJ criminal verdict was jury nullification. That being said, it was a very sloppy prosecution, and also a circus.

You really shouldn’t compare any other trial to it – it was unique in many ways.

Brushes with Celebrity- I used to have offices in the same building as CourtTV, and I used to see Johnnie Cochran all the time.

everhopeful @ 162

stingray @ 156

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..40_pf.html

F: .. The need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Re-reading this, I do not believe Fitz is satisfied yet that he knows the truth. I really do believe that the Libby indictments were the first step. “We need to know the truth.”

And this:

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.

And this:

FITZGERALD: I think — but I will say this: The whole point here is that we’re going to make fine distinctions and make sure that before we charge someone with a knowing, intentional crime, we want to focus on why they did it, what they knew and what they appreciated; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they knew.

QUESTION: Does that mean you don’t feel that you know the truth about whether he intentionally did this and he knew and appreciated it? Or does that mean you are exercising your prosecutorial discretion and being conservative?

FITZGERALD: Well, I don’t want to — look, a person is charged with a crime, they are presumed innocent, and I haven’t charged him with any other crime.

And all I’m saying is the harm and the obstruction crime is it shields us from knowing the full truth.

Someone asked me today who is Cheneys current chief of staff?
I did not know? Can anybody help me?

lucy lang @ 171

Someone asked me today who is Cheneys current chief of staff?
I did not know? Can anybody help me?

Addington, I think. And Hannah is his new NSA.

EPU@158 – I agree. Defense cross was pretty ineffective; maybe a shight bit of headway with Russert, but not to put his core point in much doubt. They made absolutely no headway with Fleischer and Cheney’s PR assistant, both of whom I found damning to Libby. Where the prosecution needed to cross, they did a very succinct and effective job, especially with Hannah. I thought they killed what could have been pretty effective direct from Hannah. If I am Fitzgerald, I am as happy as is possible to be with a jury still to deliberate

lucy lang @
171

Someone asked me today who is Cheneys current chief of staff?
I did not know? Can anybody help me?

Addington

At 172, so Hannah decided during his testimony on cross that Libby wouldn’t be returning to take back Hannah’s new job?

To all of Team FDL–you rock my socks.

Jane, without you much of this would not have happened, and what little trial blogging there was would have been pale and anemic compared to what all of you have done. To Jane! *ding*

Jeralyn, thank you so much for your expert opinions. I don’t agree with some of them, and I’ve found myself wanting to scream “no, no, don’t give them HINTS” at times, but I agree with what someone said above–the fact that we’re willing to listen to and consider opinions contrary to our own is what makes us different from “them”. And gods all bless you for defending Timothy McVeigh; IMO he was a monster, but he deserved and got a fair trial, and that is thanks in large part to you.

Marcy, what can I say? Your work on this has been nothing short of amazing, and I have thoroughly enjoyed your insights and expertise and incisive humor all through the trial. If you ever end up in Seattle, I’d love to buy you coffee.

Swopa, Pach, EG–my heartfelt thanks.

Among the many possibilities of why Ted Wells didn’t put Scooter Libby on the stand, or Dick Cheney, one idea stands out…

He’s guilty.

Oh, and Christy! And LHP, and eriposte!

And TRex, for being such a faaaaabulous reptile!

There are just TOO many amazing people here, doing kickass work.

Thanks!

Its to bad Fitz could not have gotten Carl Rove frogmarched and we had to settle for this poor Libby toad.

Pachacutec @
31

PS Thanks also for the David Schuster pic.

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!

Hairy is fine – but, does he wear cologne?

The defense keeps trying to make the point that these interviews happened much later, so everyone’s memory is rusty. Wrong. The kerfuffle began with the Novak article. For anyone tied to case, or reporting around the edges, is was like a 9/11 or JFK assasination moment: you remember where you were and what you were doing that day. That is why Russert is credible. It was a singular event in his mind.

Libby was not trying to remember a conversation 3 months after the fact. As soon as the article caused an stir, he would be replaying his actions beforehand and they would be seared in his memory. Same with the reporters.

Pectopah @ 181

The defense keeps trying to make the point that these interviews happened much later, so everyone’s memory is rusty. Wrong. The kerfuffle began with the Novak article. For anyone tied to case, or reporting around the edges, is was like a 9/11 or JFK assasination moment: you remember where you were and what you were doing that day. That is why Russert is credible. It was a singular event in his mind.

Libby was not trying to remember a conversation 3 months after the fact. As soon as the article caused an stir, he would be replaying his actions beforehand and they would be seared in his memory. Same with the reporters.

Excellent point. Thanks. He also could conceivably forgot where he learned Plame’s identity, but it’s extremely unlikely he’d remember being told by someone whom he didn’t know or with whom he hardly ever spoke. Just doesn’t ring true.

…some work in Canada. But, with your work shoring up american democracy, I may at least stop wanting to just move up there

> :-)
Same here. Thank you all so much!

I am amazed by how much I have learned simply following FDL’s coverage and commentary. Thank you all so much, I am truly enjoying this. Excellent work!

Leakwater is a better name for this show than “CIA Leak Case.” Nixon had Watergate, the Clintons had Whitewater. This is Leakwater. See also “The Leaker,” a John Sherffius cartoon of July 11, 2005, which shows Karl Rove taking a leak on the CIA seal.
The nation’s disinterested mind awaits a winning title. When we hear one, we may start to take notice.

Big Valentine kisses to Jane, Jeralyn, and Marcy for the superlative coverage of this trial, which was all too absent in the MSM. You all rock! And props to Politics TV for the day-end summaries which put me to bed which I raced home from work for every day. My deepest regards to all. And Jane, you look great — warm wishes for your continued recovery.

Evil Parallel Universe @
48

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?

I’m talking about the *attitude* of a certain class of people. That they believe they are above the law. It’s a pernicious attitude, but it is there.

That the system is stacked in their favor, there is no doubt. That the vast majority are going to jail is in serious doubt. Many who pay those high fees never see the inside of a prison. Many never see the inside of a courtroom.

Then there are those, like Libby, who can just say “pardon me” to the co-conspirator-in-chief and, even though they are found guilty, are absolved of their crimes by executive fiat. For semi-recent examples, see Iran-Contra.

I really don’t think we are in disagreement(?)

Oklahoma kiddo @
95

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?

From here

Politics TV is my favorite channel.

In the video, Jeralyn seems disappointed that Fitzgerald didn’t prove Libby’s motive. How can he when they cut his legs off by not having Libby testify? It’s like talking about the motive of an empty chair.

Libby’s refusal to testify is the biggest piece of evidence in the trial. If it were just his memory, he could say that on the stand. But then he would be admitting that all those things happened and he’d have to answer to why they happened. Why did he send a C.I.A. Agent looking into Valerie Plame? Why did he talk about her to Judy Miller? and Ari Fleischer? Why did he and his boss work up “talking points” about Joseph Wilson? The only reason not to testify is that he’s guilty.

So his defense is I forget and all those other people are lying? No dice!

Mickey @
190

So his defense is I forget and all those other people are lying? No dice!

If Wells is smart he won’t allege the other witnesses were lying, he’ll say they were just, like Libby, mistaken.

dab from CT @
112

2/3rds of the video is Jeralyn’s rather warped wrap up of the case. (The bit about Well’s sincere explanation as to why Cheney and Libby weren’t testifying (cause they didn’t get statements until December) is just crap and Marcy could barely keep from laughing out loud.)

Dab, watch the video again. It was Marcy, not me who said Ted Wells sounded sincere in that explanation!