
So, after a month of sitting in the first floor media room watching the court room on the close circuit TV, they finally graduated me to the court room!! I wanted to give a few more thoughtful impressions from my minutes in the court room–and pass on the details on the deliberation process.
I gotta say, TeamUSA sure seemed more lighthearted than Team Libby. There were smiles, they seemed relaxed, and Debra Bonamici–who looked pretty tired yesterday–looked like she, too, had gotten a good night's rest. To answer a question a lot of people asked, Fitzgerald hadn't been to Ash Wednesday Mass yet (though he was the first to scoot out of the court room, so maybe he hit the lunch time Mass I saw breaking up as I left the court house).
Meanwhile, Team Libby still seemed to be suffering from a lot of leftover tensions from yesterday. I was told when I came into the court room (a couple of hours into the day) that Wells and Jeffress weren't really chatty, though they did kiss and make up while I was sitting there. As I think I said earlier, they lost the defendant at the break. They had to send a couple of associates to hunt him down (Judge Walton, take note–already a flight risk, I say). He came in all sheepish like and spent the instructions period passing notes with the associate who was minding him. Wells still seemed pretty gloomy.
As everyone has said, the jury was very attentive. There were a couple taking notes, and one who nodded throughout. We finally learned who the final juror was–the one who replaced the juror who had to be dismissed for work reasons. Turns out we've got another PhD on this jury. It sure seems like Team Libby traded Bush haters for very well educated but apparently apolitical types.
We've gotten word as to the jury deliberation process. They'll be working from 9 AM to 5 PM, with lunch from 12:30 to 1:30. They'll work on Friday, but not through the weekend (if it goes that far). Here's the kicker: They will only give a 15 minute notice for any questions or verdict. The folks getting paid for this will camp out at the court house for the balance of the deliberation, I guess. Me, I've got to go home and take care of my doggie, who has been acting up in my absence.
Any juror questions will be answered in open court, so we'll get some sense of where they're heading (though I won't be there to liveblog it).
And Fitzgerald's spokesperson has already announced he won't be doing private interviews after the verdict. He'll make a statement in front of the court house. But then silent Fitzgerald will return to his silent ways.
I wonder what he'll have to say to us???



217 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Emptywheel and Fitz!
Fitz! EW!! FDL!!! Zed?
Dang, Dru was faster. ;-)
FITZ!
Thanks Marcy!
You’ve done us all a great service.
I wrote about how I sneaked myself into the media room those couple of times.
http://politblogo.typepad.com/…..word_.html
Also, are you (meaning the FDL livebloggers) planning on having some kind of hero’s departure bash or something? Or are you all going to float away as though nothing had ever happened?
Any truth that the longer the jury stays out, the better for the defense? Myth? There must have been some stat studies about the relationship of deliberation length to guilty verdicts.
Fifteen minutes? Getting anywhere in DC in under fifteen minutes just isn’t going to happen unless you can walk it.
I guess the folks on Team Libby will be racking up the billable hours for Irving at the courthouse, rather than working on other cases back in the office.
Oklahoma kiddo @
7
It’s mostly myth. There’s an old saying in “civil” cases that the longer they are out the better for plaintiff because they are talking money.
In a 5-count case, I’d be hard pressed to see how the verdict would occur in a few hours. There is a lot to talk about and the jury instructions are fairly comprehensive.
15 minute notice!!
but, but, but I can’t be ready that fast!
Thank you for this scoop, and for everything Marcy!
tell your doggie thanks for letting us ‘borrow’ you, emptywheel.
thank you very much.
Wheel, you know I need to know. What’s the dog been doing?
Interesting choice of words EW.
You’ve earned a break!
Marcy, I feel like I cleared the room when I said that I thought Tim Russert had done a good thing. I am wondering what you think.
“But then silent Fitzgerald will return to his silent ways.
I wonder what he’ll have to say to us??? “
Duh!
THIS INVESTIGATION CONTINUES.
15 minutes?? I’m definitely wearing my NASA diaper.
“Fitzgerald will return to his silent ways.”
___
Because, like The Decider, he cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.
:)
15 minute notice?
Does the courthouse have enough cots for everyone?
Emptywheel, Jane, Christy, Pach, Swopa, Trex, Scarecrow, Lhp, and any I missed, plus the wonderful regulars we love, newbies, and myself representing the lurkers….Take a bow!
Italian PM hands in resignation
Troop deployments have split Mr Prodi’s coalition
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has handed his resignation to the country’s president after losing a crucial foreign policy vote in the Senate.
President Giorgio Napolitano is now expected to hold talks with political leaders before reaching a decision.
He could accept the resignation or ask Mr Prodi to stay in power.
In the vote, several of Mr Prodi’s coalition partners opposed troop deployments in Afghanistan and plans to expand a US airbase in northern Italy.
Another world leader bites the dust at the hands of GW Bush. Man’s a genius!!
Hi Marcy – great job throughout the trial! A few thoughts on length of deliberations and jury questions. I have tried over 100 jury trials (only a tiny few minor criminal though)and my experience is that neither the questions nor the length of deliberations mean anything.
The one exception is a really fast return after a short trial is usually a defense verdict, but beyond that it means nothing. After a long a complicated case a good jury will take its time and go through the evidence before even taking its first vote.
Questions mean nothing, I had a long wrongful death case representing the defendant and the jury after two or three days asked for a calculator. Not generally a good sign for defense if they are figuring out how much. An hour later (during which I aged a year)they came back with defense verdict. The explnantion, one juror wanted to know what they would have awarded if they had found liability and the others agreed to humor him. You just never know.
Ignore all speculation and wait.
I hope he quietly says, “Happy belated Fitzmas!”
What amazona said.
Major props.
Cheney will be sorry he missed you, Marcy.
Dude
If our side wins, I hope that you will allow yourself to let go and put your dog up there on the video podcast with a mic in paw.
Correction and point of order – it is not TeamUSA, but Team America.
They’re done for the day:
Thanks for the warning that there will only be a 15 minute warning from the jury. I now know I need to keep a tab open to FDL all the time while this jury is sitting and checking it at least once ever 20 minutes or so. As you may gather I am really interested in the verdict, much like everyone else here…:)
Thank you for all your hard work these last few weeks on top of the stellar research work you have been doing for the past couple of years now. I have very much enjoyed your work both here and at TNH and I look forward to when I finally have access to your book, either via our local bookstore or Library, but seeing as we are up in the Canadian wilderness it may take a while. I would order it save I am not in a position to be able to do so, I must be one of the few people that never had a credit card, which is a real pain when something one is interested in is only available via the internet and credit cards. Maybe I can convince a family member with one to get it for my birthday…:)
A TIP O’ THE HAT to you mighty adventurers.
A new era is upon us. We have met the enemy and they still don’t know that we don’t have to speak in code.
Your dawgie calls.
This is seriously messing up my work day guys – leave my shop every 20 minutes or so to come upstairs to log on. Obviously not going to be a very productive week around here….
And Fitzgerald’s spokesperson has already announced he won’t be doing private interviews after the verdict. He’ll make a statement in front of the court house.
Somehow I doubt that Fitz will be making an announcement about any of yesterday’s offers after his rebuttal. (That was an interesting set of offers. Mine would be: an afghan in colors of his choosing.)
SaltinWound @ 13
He was at day care for 3 of the weeks. But then he had a little incident, and he won’t be going back to daycare until he learns to play nice with a Kong.
Jason Leopold on yesterday’s closing statements:
Thank you Marcy! I sure your pooch will be happy to have you home for awhile. Since they are now off for the day you can even go get a cold beer.
Upon the verdict being reached, I predict that Fitzgerald will not announce a conclusion to the investigation from the steps of Prettyman.
I also don’t think he will be using very much of the public’s dime before he does make his intentions known.
Hung jury?
Great work, Marcy, and this is icing on the cupcake. I want to refer to one of your observations, which I have learned to scrutinize closely for some keen insights.
“He came in all sheepish like and spent the instructions period passing notes with the associate who was minding him. Wells still seemed pretty gloomy.”
This suggests to me that an earlier poster on a previous thread had a perception of this trial that might be more accurate than I first gave credit for. Libby is playing chessmaster, and using Wells as his knight.
If Libby was playing the puppetmaster and Wells wanted more control, it would also skew the three-way Walton-Wells-Fitz alpha-male “cockfight”, because Libby’s a banty rooster right in the middle of the scrap.
If there’san validity to the Wells-was-a-hand- puppet theory, it may well prove that Libby engineered his own undoing, and Wells’ frustration came from what he perceives as imposed impotence, at the hands of an obsessed strategist.
Just food for more thought.
My experience from being on 2 juries and alternating on a third is that in one case (a DUI) we were at guilty on one of the counts pretty fast and haggled over a secondary count (on which we hung). On a civil case, we were at a defense verdict after the first go-round, and were out in about 1 hour. And then the criminal case – posession – the jury found the guy guilty in 15 minutes, 10 of which were probably spent filling out the forms.
This is more complex, but my point (and I do have one) is that there’s no way of knowing what anything means. Life is is best understood backwards, as Soren Kierkegaard said, but it must be lived forwards.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 37
Please no.
What happens if the jury agrees unanimously on several, but not all of the counts? Is that still a hung jury?
Who decided that there will only be a 15 minuted warning? Won’t the courtroom be mostly empty when the verdicts are announced? No chance for audience participation. ;->
JEP @ 38
From sitting in the courtroom, that was my impression in a nutshell.
Shoot EW, too bad doggie’s in Michigan. Would have been glad to pet sit locally. Our old dog always loves company, we pet sit all the time.
JEP @ 38
The way things go around DC, it’s not Libby who is running Wells. It’s The Dick who is famous for micro-managing experts, is it not?
Marcy, You have the cutest little smiling cheeks on TV interviews.
Thanks for the update and everything else.
EPU’d but I think it’s important to recognize Mark Benjamin and Salon for their coverage two years ago anticipating this weekend’s WaPo Walter Reed story.
It seems the WH doesn’t
give a fat flying fiddler’s fuckknow what’s going on in their own army/city unless it hits the media. I guess two years ago Mark Benjamin and Salon didn’t get as much mainstream non-blog coverage as, say, FDL does today.well, at least Wells was paid well for his imposed impotence…
the, um, notoriety may not be worth it, though.
:>
Sparkles the Iguana @
41
that’s a great question – in other words, let’s say they unanimously find Libby guilty on 3 counts, innocent on 1, and can’t agree on the final one – would the retrial then only be on the disputed count?
Marcy excellent post at TheNextHurrah Madness! Madness! Madness! I’ve shared it with many.
And thank you for your great insight throughout this trial!
Pat_AlexVA @ 44
Well, if I come back next weekend with MilleniaLab in tow, I may keep it in mind.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 41
IANA criminal L but my educated guess is that there would a be a judgment on those counts on which there was a verdict and a mistrial on the others. The gov’t would then decide if they wanted a do over on the ones in which no verdict was reached.
This makes sense to me. IANAL (and daily more grateful about this!) but given the weakness of the defense position, and if the welfare of my client was my only concern, I’d have advised him to flip and cut a deal, if a deal was to be had.
mandos @6
i saw your post yesterday morning and followed your live-blog, along with fdl’s…………you did a great job!!!!!!!! thanks!!!!!!
I feel like a kid on a long car trip somewhere… “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Don’t make us waaaaaaiit!”
As a trial lawyer who has tried about 100 cases before Maine juries, roughly one third of them criminal, I am amazed at the non-performance of the defense attorneys. One never should look downcast before a jury: they will think your client is losing. One should never allow one’s client to write notes during jury instructions: it looks disrespectful to the Court. A play of emotions at the end of one’s closing with a highly educated jury is never advised: a more educated jury is going to be receptive to talk about reasonable doubt and traditions of the criminal law that are older than this country. Finally, one should never get flustered, as Wells did, at the prosecution seeming to personalize its attack. If the other attorney is mentioning my name (as opposed to saying “the defense”), I figure I am winning with the jury.
Lengthy deliberations will not be a good sign for the defense: it will mean, at best, that the jury is convicting on only some of the counts.
Oklahoma kiddo @
37
No thanks, I just ate.
Marcy in the courtroom!!
New shiny. Seeing into the future. They call us mentally ill, but in the past we were called the seers. The visionaries. The ones who could see the future. We are your scouts, your birds returning with branches to the ark, your canaries in the mine. I have the second sight but it is painful. We are different and strange but you need us. Don’t exile us for being difficult to understand. Many times we don’t even understand ourselves.
Jane—–my goal in Russia is to solve more problems than I create. I hope I am doing that here at FDL.
I do acknowledge that I create problems and for that I am deeply sorry. I hope the equation works out to be positive.
does anyone know…. if libby is found guilty, how long will it before the judge decides what the penalty ought to be. would the lawyers have the opportunity to make further statements to the judge first? what’s the process?
From what I have read about Wells’ (acting) performance, I think I would have been turned off as a juror. It kind of reminded me of that female lawyer in California who got down on all fours to pretend she was a dog. That didn’t go over with the jury either, from what I remember.
A. J. Greif @ 56
FWIW I agree with all of the above. Never show fear nor any disrespect for the court. The jury regards the judge as God. Also, if I were in a case and the client wanted to tell me how to try it from the tactical point of view, I’d tell him to find someone else. He’s paying for my expertise and it is a disaster to substitute the client’s ideas for one’s own in those circumstances.
emptywheel @
33
That must be some dog.
Messing with a giant ape!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..leak_trial
Interestingly high level of people with math and logic backgrounds on there…”geeks” a la Fitz. I bet that they sit down with the evidence and chart it all out and show the others what Fitz was talking about.
These are people who can easily see that A leads to B and C…and these then lead to D,E,F. They’ll see precisely that Libby’s assertions that he “suddenly” developed a belief that Russert told him doesn’t make sense because these a) immediately followed a whole series of events where he conveyed the very information he supposedly learned from Russert, and b) he fabricated claims after his “Russert” claims that he told others that Russert told him.
Remember his contrived claim about not wanting to reveal Russert as his source to Mitchell. And that he thinks he told Cheney (no testimony in support- though he could have called him), and that he told Rove (no testimony in support- though he could have called him); and that he told Cooper (no testimony in support-Cooper disagrees and Martin said she never heard Libby say anything of the sort). Libby not only “misremembered” the Russert conversation…but he “misremembered” a whole series of other “tellings” in which that Russert event was essential…with not a trace of evidence in support of this tale brought before the jury.
WEAK!
From last thread:
Didn’t Fitz state that Rove had a different memory of the conversation with Libby than Libby did? If so, did he overstep the evidentiary bounds and what are the consequences of doing so?
I can’t believe such a meticulous prosecutor would make such an obvious goof, but the JOM folks seem to think it is worthy of an ethics complaint to DoJ.
To play the Scooter Libby Home Version
With the official verdict form after the jump, you too can cast a vote in the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Dick Cheney and leaker of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity.
You can fill out a form here–
http://www.radaronline.com/exc…..ersion.php
cinnamonape @ 63
Does the jury have access to the trial transcripts to review during their deliberations? It seems to me that in a complex case such as this, they should.
Answers to questions – jurors decide their verdict on counts independenly. So, for instance, they can reach a verdict on four counts and hang on a fifth; after which, the court then declares a mistrial on any hung counts and enters the verdicts on the counts that were decided. As to time the jury is out having any meaning; anybody that states there are any real guidelines in this regard are nuts. There is no rhyme or reason, especially in a multi-count indictment. In a one count jury deliberation, an extremely fast verdict would usually signal a defense verdict, but I have had more than oine instance go the other way. In mult-count cases, you just do not know what they are doing; trying to speculate will drive you nuts.
“The way things go around DC, it’s not Libby who is running Wells. It’s The Dick who is famous for micro-managing experts, is it not?”
Cheney’s handpuppet (Libby) with his own handpuppet (Wells)?
I like it, and it sounds quite plausible.
And I doubt there’s any higher puppetmaster above Cheney, Bush was just a diversion.
Also, lets not forget, Cheney has two hands… I’ll bet Rove had Cheney’s other hand buried clear up to the elbow in his sockpuppet…
Aw, Marcy, couldn’t you stalk him just a bit and get a quote for the “next edition” of your book?
You’ve been great throughout. I hope there is some sort of “meet & greet” in DC. [I was out of town for your booksigning.]
You really are the best, and I wish the MSM would put you on camera so the country could see what a real journalist looks like!
Marcy – Are you still planning a book tour event in NYC for March?
I’m looking forward to the possibility of getting my dog-eared copy of “Anatomy of Deceit” signed by the author!
Thank you for all of your marvelous work.
If it hasn’t been reported yet, an article by Media Matters:
Wash. Post published four op-eds attacking prosecution and trial of Libby, none supporting them
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702210007
Emptywheel and Fitz! Great and inspirational efforts. I’m looking forward to your future Plame trials and future blogging.
Petedownunder@61 and AJGrief@56 – Boy have you got that right. If I had ever done what Wells did, I would expect the judge to say something to the effect of “Counselor, are you with us – do you need medical assistance?” You just do NOT do this. Never, EVER, let jurors see you sweat.
Jane,
Will you be closing down Plame House now or will you be hanging around there a while longer?
If Libby is found guilty, there will be a separate sentencing hearing. Both the prosecution and defense will have the opportunity to speak at that hearing. This will be defense’s chance to ask for leniency for their client.
In some cases the jury can make recommendations as to the severity of sentencing. Not sure if this is applicable to this one.
Suggested script for Fitz’s press conference, regardless of the verdict: “I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.”
egregious @ 58
I personally see no negatives :))
HappyDays @ 64
He said Libby had a BETTER memory of the conversation than Rove. I suppose there isn’t evidence for that introduced in the trial–but neither was there evidence for the Throw Scooter Under a Bus.
A. J. Greif @ 56
I agree with everything you say from my own trial experience (several trials no criminal though)
ccmask @ 77
Me neither!!! All positive.
Claudia @ 60
They were cat people?
A girlfriend of mine lives in NYC. They pick up her dog 3 days a week on the uppeer east side for Doggy Day Care. They pick her up at 8:00 AM and drop her off (exhausted, by the way) at 5:00.
I miss New York
Jane, Christy & Marcy – your TV wrapup last night was marvelous – as has been the entire coverage by FDL.
Marcy – can’t you get Amazon to speed up delivery of your book – it seems like I ordered it eons ago?
While we’re waiting … Adam Felber has a nice piece on Well’s closing:
It was “memory,” ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Memory.
Plus, Scooter’s taking the fall for other people. In the administration. He’s a fall-guy….Now, you may ask why Mr. Libby didn’t take the stand. Or why, if he’s truly a fall guy, we didn’t compel anyone else in the administration to testify. Why we’re not saying who Scooter’s taking the fall FOR. Why, in fact, we didn’t make it clear that, for instance, Mr. Libby’s boss, Vice President Cheney, is the man truly responsible for the leak. Wouldn’t THAT have been a good defense?
Maybe it would have been. That’s “my bad,” right there, really. …
Also, here’s a little anecdote about the unpredictability of juries and their questions. I was involved in a serial-rape case many years ago (13 victims in one jurisdiction) -the jury was deliberating after six weeks of testimony (obviously the trial wasn’t in Virginia) and after several hours they posed their one and only question and this is what it was, “Could a woman be considered to be in fear for her life if she was unconscious?”
Considering the state of her consciousness was a direct result of being choked by the defendant until she lost it, you can imagine how unfathomable, the prosecution considered this question, and how worried they were about what was going on in the deliberations for them to have reached that point.
It was a question that (for legal reasons I guess though I’m not a lawyer) the judge said he couldn’t offer an instruction.
Deliberations continued and it wasn’t until ‘polling’ the jury after the verdict was in (guilty on all counts of which there were something on the order 112 as I recollect) that we found out that they were merely trying to find a way to find him innocent of one count … in the end they could not.
As it happens, in the trial of the second defendant (who participated in six of the assaults) there was a little jury nullification. where the jury reached a ‘compromise’ when two black jurors refused to convict the defendant on all charges not because they didn’t believe they were crimes (as in the earlier discussion of jury nullification) but because they felt as a black man he deserved a break given the general treatment of blacks in our judicial system.
In the end, the judge in the case gave the maximum sentence (he may have even exceeded the guidelines, I don’t recall for sure) and their ‘negotiations’ were for naught. The sentence was 98 years and defense counsel complained something to the effect that they would have taken the plea (65 years I believe) had they thought the sentence would be that excessive. And the judge responded that’s why it’s called a bargain counselor … you take the plea, you get the bargain. You don’t take the plea, you don’t get the bargain.
No question, Libby is guilty and the jury will find him guilty. Only questions would be appeals and possible pardon. But the jury cannot possibly believe that Libby forgot what he said he forgot. He is a liar and he lied at the wrong times to the wrong people.
Thank you so much for all of your reporting, Marcy! Add me to your list of love-struck admirers!
*xyz @ 66
I would seriously doubt that. (Does any jury ever have a transcript?) But they do have their notes, and they can always submit questions to Walton.
Did she bark?
Now that we are in the deliberation phase, I wonder if Barbara Comstock is sleeping on Libby’s couch, keeping him under constant surveillance so that he can’t call his lawyers and instruct them to cut a deal with Fitzgerald.
If (when) Scooter is found guilty on one or more of the counts, the judge will set a sentencing date right after the jury is dismissed. He will also order that a probation officer prepare a report on Scooter, which includes all kinds of information on the guy, his family, his background, etc. It also calculates a sentence called for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Both sides receive this non-public report when it is finished and make comments on it to the judge, as well as any sentencing-related motions they have. On the day of sentencing, the judge will invite comment on the appropriate sentence from both sides and allow Scooter himself the chance to speak. He will then take all of this information — the extensive report from probation, the lawyers’ comments, the advisory sentence from the guidelines, and Scooter’s statement — into consideration and issue his sentence. If the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, he will then set a surrender date for Scooter. If there are any counts on which the jury could not reach a verdict, the government will probably dismiss them right after the sentence is imposed.
And then, a few days before Scooter is to report to his designated federal prison, he will be pardoned and never serve a day.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 41
No. It’s a guilty verdict on that charge. Each charge is based upon where and to whom he lied. He had two interviews with the FBI, and three (?) Grand Jury appearances. There were “contradictory” statements to the facts in each…some repeated, some altered. Thus one charge of perjury deals with the statements he made on one day of GJ testimony.
So even worse for Libby…because there are several “lies”…okay, statements…that he made that are components of each count, if the jurors find only a single one of those statements to be a “lie” within a reasonable doubt…he is guilty of that count.
In one of the counts Fitz pointed to four explicit misstatements, in two others three, in another two, etc.
So even if a juror feels that several of the witnesses credibility are not sufficiently trustworthy, and yet joins with the rest of her peers on a single one…that’s a guilty verdict on that count. And even more interesting. If they use Fitz’s logic of the weight of evidence supporting the whole set of claims, the jurors COULD believe that different witnesses were unreliable, and yet accept that since several were reliable that Libby could not be telling the truth.
Thus a single witnesses testimony can “win” the count…or combinations of them could as well.
I think that Libby’s only chance is if one juror accepts that Libby has a very odd form of amnesia and false-recovered memory. Apparently Libby forgets pretty much only those things that relate to the VP and he having made incriminating statements or actions before the Novak op-ed…and then has this strange “fugue” condition whereby Tim Russert “channelled” the Shooter’s voice for one transcendant moment.
Then the Libster was off telling Rove, Cheney, Andrea Mitchell, and Cooper about what Russert told him!
What is interesting to me in this case is how the grand jury testimony played and if it looked like Libby was blatantly lying on them.
If so, he’s likely fucked.
Some interest in the bush spin on the brits decision to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Bush is adding troops in Afghanistan cause he says things are goin well there. Brits are withdrawing-according to bush- cause things are goin so well there.
Ya gotta wonder just how stupid bush thinks the american people are.
ccmask @ 82
Wait, wait, they pick up the girlfriend or the dog?
ccmask @ 77
Yeah well you didn’t see what was left of the china shop after I passed thru.
Can I just say that I find it annoying when people visit the comment section solely to make these strident and unsupported guarantees that Libby will get a pardon?
Sure, it is a possibility. Maybe a strong one. I don’t know. And neither does anyone else commenting at FDL. The facts that we all know aren’t sufficient to make this prediction.
SXSW – if you have some other new evidence that a pardon is in the offing, please share it.
Maybe we could have a new heading at the top of the fdl post: Yes, yes, we know there COULD be a pardon. If you have anything ELSE to say, have at it.
I speak as one who raised this issue in December 2005 and was roundly excoriated for it :) along with the then unpopular idea that voting machines were crooked. And that we were heading into some deep sh*t about IraN.
ccmask @ 82
Fargo has multiple doggie daycares. Also low crime rate. Great schools. Top-notch medical services. High tech companies. 1.8% unemployment rate. And the lakes country right next door.
But then silent Fitzgerald will return to his silent ways.
back to the bat cave!
obsessed @ 49
Yes, that would be the Prosecutor’s perogative. Libby could appeal the 3 counts he was found guilty of…but Fitz could not retry the one in which the jury determined “Not Guilty”.
I think on a 3-1-1 situation that Fitz wouldn’t bother to retry the one count. But if it was an 11-1 talley on several counts (perhaps based on one holdout juror), I can guess what he would do.
Sally @ 25
Ha, ha …..
Marcy is on a first-name basis with him, you know!Mauimom @ 69
I am looking forward to THAT!
:-)
SXSW @ 90
Then Fitz will subpoena him for the grand jury and he will go to the slammer for contempt of court if he dosn’t testify. Check and mate.
If we go days and days without a verdict, will the Post give Vickie Toensing another op-ed? I think really, to be fair, they have to.
Marcie, Marcie, Marcie – you are one incredible Wonderwoman! Bionic fingers, a computer of a brain that works at lightning speed – and so filled with information and intellect that I don’t know how it all fits in that pretty head of yours!
I am reading your book – you are an amazing writer, as well!
Thank you a billion times for all you have done for us! I, like everyone else, also send my deepest appreciation and admiration to Jane, Christie, Pach, Trex, Swopa, and all of the others who are too numerous to mention, for providing this historic experience for all of us that care – and have provided a kick in the butt to MSM to start reporting things that they don’t think people care about.
I also am sending another bit in the FDL bucket to help with expenses. Wish I could do even more!
BTW – does anyone have an address where one could send a thank -you letter to our dear Fitz?
Oh – and I want to send a shout-out to all commenters for the collegiality, the information and provocative comments that help inform and stimulate thought – and for helping me stay somewhat sane.
Tap tap tap – waiting… (not good with patience here (-: )
Kathie
Oops, sorry about all the boxes.
I am a novice on this site.
Chee-knee not concerned about allies pulling out of Iraq. A friend of his drove 7 hours from Baghdad to Basra.
Who, says we????????????
Mr. S. sums it up: he’s a lyin’ sack o’shit.
Sparkles@87 – In that case, the jury can ask the court to have applicable portions of the testimony read back to them by the court reporter, but not transcripts.
This coverage has been fabulous, a real event. Someday in the future, we will be able to say we were there at the dawn of a new kind of reportage/citizen info gathering and dissemination.
And here Anatomy of Deceit is the Firedoglake link to Marcy’s book, for everyone’s convenience.
I am going to cross-stitch Fitz’s rebuttal onto a pillow.
Fargo has multiple doggie daycares. Also low crime rate. Great schools. Top-notch medical services. High tech companies. 1.8% unemployment rate. And the lakes country right next door.
and sunflowers right?
Joel Grant @ 84
It’s obvious to you. And to me. And to most everyone here. But wasn’t it obvious to all of us prior to the 2000 elections The Shrub was a liar? (Dissemmbler at best). Yet so many poeple voted for him based on his “honesty!”
Pheh.
None the less, I do think this jury in particular isn’t apt to be suckered in and there’s SO much evidence agaisnt the Scoots that yes, he’ll be found guilty on most if not all counts.
*xyz @ 96
I didn’t think I was commenting “solely” to make a crack about a pardon. I’m a former federal prosecutor and was trying to enlighten about the process that would follow a verdict of guilty on one or more of the counts. I DO think that the guy will be pardoned. I don’t have “evidence” of that, but I wouldn’t bet against it.
stephanie @ 105
Hi Stephanie. You’re brave, messing about with them, I didn’t dare for ages. You’ll learn faster than I did. Welcome to the lake.
KathieinMN @ 104
So that’s where my fingers went! Anything for the cause. ;o)
*xyz @
66
No. At least we didn’t on the federal trial I sat on. It was a complicated mother too, with 9 defendants and more than a hundred separate counts against them. We took 2 weeks, acquitted one, convicted 5, and just gave up on the last 3.
Process was sheer hell. A few of us had been very diligent, understood the issues and the evidence, and had to explain it all over and over for the people who were sure it was all too complicated to even comprehend. And there was one guy who was determined NOT to be convinced, no matter what.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 109
Wouldn’t i be nice set to music? Ed*ard Teller, you set it for soprano and h’chord, I’ll sing it. Hmm, how about soprano, harpsichord and chainsaw?
stephanie @ 105
Not to worry. I made a staggering number of mistakes as a newbie. People said it was…egregious. Somehow I recovered w what was left of my dignity.
Plunge in! My motto.
[Then come back later and mop up the mess.]
HotFlash @ 94
Just the dog, silly.
fyi– cspan1 carrying replay of military ‘health’ care presser from today now.
Dem forum will be replayed on 1 @ 906pm acc. to the schedule.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 81
Nah. They were all “Thespians Against Over-Acting.” (That lawyer actually made the news because people thought her stunts were so outrageous.)
SXSW @ 90 – thanks for the sentencing process info (that answers my earlier questions).
SXSW @ 112
SXSW – You have my apologies. Your comment was highly informative, but the pardon prediction set me off. People have been making that claim over and over again, without providing any additional information as to why they feel this way. Sure, we all know there may be a pardon, we may even think the likelihood of a pardon is high, but what good does it do to repeatedly predict a pardon? It isn’t saying anything that we don’t already know.
ccmask, your company troubles getting sorted out? Heard something about profit-sharing or some progressive thing like that?
stephanie @ 105
Tis nothing to worry about, and sometimes can be a lot of fun! *g*
ccmask @ 65
Wow! That’s the official jury verdict form! That means neither the prosecution or defense will have a clue as to which element they suceeded or failed upon…or what the individual count on each charge was.
They won’t know if it was 11-1 against acquittal on count two or 6-6. And what do they do on those counts where they can’t come to a unanimous verdict? Do they simply leave them blank, and contact the judge?
HotFlash @ 102
And don’t forget that there’s the Wilsons’ civil suit waiting in the wings. Bush’s pardon can’t stop that.
And in any event, if Scooter exhausts the appeals route before, say, November of 2008, he’s SOL because Bush doesn’t dare pardon him before the election.
Iran.
For no particular reason, I just want to give another well earned shout out and thank you to the moderators. You know who you are.
Prairie Sunshine @ 98
Prairie Sunshine. Are you Fargo? Click on my name and email me from my website. I’d love to meet you. Best, John
I figure Libby is being well-paid to take this fall (you know, like when the Aspens Turn).
He will not see the wife an’ chilluns much, but their lifestyle will not otherwise suffer.
At some point, maybe he will get a pardon. But there is the civil case, and who knows what else.
Meantime, the money rolls in. How’s that go? Haliburton’s got your back.
Turned out I only get one day off work (today) before another project starts. Found out at around 4:30 this afternoon. Had I known I wouldn’t have at least tomorrow off too, I might have planned to appreciate this day a bit more.
I did find time to post some musings about Ash Wednesday, and the intersection of my faith and politics.
KathieinMN @
104
Yeah. Amazing.
I wonder, though, would it have been possible to use Dragon 9.0 in lieu of typing? Wear a small headset mic and just talk the live blogging into the computer. Maybe not an appropriate environment for it.
Just wondering. We’re having a lot of doctors use it with the EMRs we help them install and transition to. The equivalent of dictation, except that you just speak your observations directly into the electronic medical record. Appears right in the database field as free text as you speak.
They’ve really improved, to about 99% accuracy (more accurate than typing).
_
*xyz @
66
Good question. I know they were allowed to keep their OWN NOTES…and they would have access to the transcripts of the GJ and other submitted evidence. I recall in other cases the jurors have asked for transcripts of the particular testimony of specific witnesses…so I would offer a qualified YES.
SXSW: What about HotFlash’s comment @ 102 in response to your post @ 90?
You said: And then, a few days before Scooter is to report to his designated federal prison, he will be pardoned and never serve a day.
HotFlash riposted:
Then Fitz will subpoena him for the grand jury and he will go to the slammer for contempt of court if he dosn’t testify. Check and mate.
HotFlash @ 123
Yeah, for now. The profit-sharing will be at Christmas. I don’t know how much yet. We are having such a great year already and it’s only February.
Looks like it could be Clinton/Obama in ‘08.
Former Fed @
83
Hi FormerFed,
Just FYI -I had pre-ordered the book from Amazon before distribution; when I saw everyone else here was getting their copy – I had to order again! Thus, I am late to the table in terms of finishing the book. (But have talked many others into ordering it!)
Regardless of what happens with the verdict, Fitzgerald has made me proud to be an American (after the past six years of this Bush bunch being in power, one emotion I haven’t felt much of is pride).
Way to go, Fitz–you’re an inspiration.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 109
OMG I am so making “aid and comfort” pillows.
thank you emptywheel
David Baerwald @ 86
Hmm, are you THE David Baerwald, late of David and David? Well, love your music, and if you’re not, I still love David Baerwald’s music.
And I concur wholeheartedly, thank you, Marcy, what spectacular work you’ve done! Thanks.
“But then silent Fitzgerald will return to his silent ways”.
Yup.
At least until he puts another paragon of virtuissimitudinousness through the wringer.
Everybody’s favorite Lord in the cross-hairs, Mr. Conrad Black.
.
10 whites and 2 blacks in the jury in a city where blacks outnumber whites by 2-1.
Why?
SXSW @ 112
No problemo SXSW! A pardon is probably in the wings as Scoot’s reward for taking a bullet for Deadeye.
The “timing” of the pardon is where the fun begins.
Junya (and Deadeye in particular) can’t really afford to pardon Scoots while Fitz still maintains his Special Counsel plenary powers, ’cause then Fitz would drag Scoots right back into the Grand Jury.
A pardon would negate Scoot’s 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, nor could he remain mute, and therefore Scoots would have to spill all the beans about the Betrayal of Valerie Plame.
That would probably put a whole lot of other Administration miscreants including Deadeye, and perhaps Junya himself, in legal jeopardy.
Therefore, it seems likely that while Scoots will probably get a pardon, it won’t occur until the end of this Administration, and Scoots is likely to have to spend time in the pokey until then.
cinnamonape @
125
Yes, they will leave the verdict form blank on the counts where they could not reach a verdict. They will then tell the judge in a note that they have a verdict as to some counts and that they have not been able to reach a verdict as to others. Depending on their previous communications with the judge, he can then instruct them to keep working on the unresolved counts or accept what’s known as a partial verdict, i.e., take the verdict and issue a judgment of guilty on the counts they have decided unanimously and declare a mistrial on the other counts.
As for what we can learn about a jury split — was it 11 to 1 or 5 to 6 or what? — the jury is usually instructed before deliberations not to reveal their numerical split in any notes to the judge. Don’t know if that instruction was given here, so they might slip it in and we’d learn that way. Otherwise, it has to come out after the jury is dismissed by talking to those that are willing to spill the beans.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 127
My psychiatrist and my alcohol counselor forbid me from talking about Iran.
Hope other people will.
I am saving myself for some other thing in the future. Hope that is the right decision.
Pachacutec @
128
hear! hear!
inmymind’s eye @ 147
…and the guys manning the servers.
egregious @ 146
That’s one of the many nice things about the lake — you don’t have to do it all yourself. There’s folks here watching Iran, watching the vets, watching Palestine, we have thousands of eyes, ears and voices. We are everywhere.
I run hot and cold on the pardon issue. I think it depends on where Fitzgeralds investigation is. If Bush gives a full blanket pardon to Libby, it opens up the can of worms as to whether or not he can assert Fifth Amendment right to silence as to any further investigations, which would be bad for the Bushies. As it stands now, he still retains that capability effectively across the board because anything he might say could impact his culpability on charges that have not been filed or litigated yet. Also, once Libby’s usefulness to Bush is used up, Bush is not likely to even admit having ever known him. While a pardon is certainly a distinct possibility, it is by no means the given that many here tend to assume.
emptywheel @
78
I think in arguments one can go beyond the evidence presented…but the jury is instructed that the argument is NOT EVIDENCE.
Remember that Wells went beyond the evidence in his opening…claiming that he would show there WAS a conspiracy (not that Libby thought there was a conspiracy…which is something entirely different). He argued that again in his Closing. He argued that Russert may have read Novak’s article before on the AP wire – without any evidence (other than Novak’s supposition) that the article was distributed on AP or that Russert was even able to read the wire by the time that he spoke with Libby!
Closings are all about “connect the dots”. Jurors have to weigh whether the connections make sense.
he’ll ask if he can guest blog here at the lake of fire and dogs
bmaz @ 150
I think it very likely that there won’t be a pardon. Itt’s not really very likely to help Geo. And Scooter can be proeced in jail, they can make sure he as the right sort of roommate, who won’t bother him and who will act as a bodyguard. It won’t be bad, and it won’t be for long.
FWIW, history teaches us that (with the exception of some of the Watergate players) that these types always get pardoned, particularly if a Bush is in the WH.
For that reason, I am more interested in the political implications of a pardon. Could congress force Libby to testify? He would have to speak truthfully, or again open himself up to more perjury charges or perhaps contempt of congress.
And what if Fitz does have one or more sealed vs sealed indictments waiting in the wings. How would a pardoned Libby impact that? Or would such an indictment make it more dangerous (legally) for Bush to pardon Libby?
Also, if the former Fed prosecuter is still around, if Libby is convicted, how long will it be before he is sentenced? And could Libby agree to flip in exchange for a lighter sentence?
Andres Perez @ 143
I had the impression that most of the African Americans in the jury pool were excused because they couldn’t state that they could be “objective” about Cheney or the war.
Mad Dogs @ 144
I agree. I think if Scooter is pardoned it will happen on Jan 19, 2009.
What will happen in the meantime? Here is a conjecture I at first considered far fetched but is seeeming more plauible.
Scooter is convicted.
Fitz subpeona’s Cheney to GJ.
Cheney takes the fifth before the GJ.
Fitz indicts Cheney for leaking.
Cheney does not take the stand in his own defense.
Cheney convicted, but remains free on appeal.
Cheney resigns or is is impeached.
Appeal drags on to SCOTUS
Fitz subpeona’s Cheney to GJ and asks question about provenence of Niger forgeries.
Cheney takes the fifth.
Fitz indicts Cheney for conspiracy to use Niger forgeries charging espionage (a capital crime)
Cheney does not take the stand in his own defense.
CHENEY CANNOT DEFEND HIS INDEFENSIBLE ACTIONS
What do you think?
Cinamonape@133 – See my answer @ 107 regarding the transcripts issue
Pachacutec @ 128
Seconded. I don’t think they’ve slept in days. And everything has run smoothly. Great work behind the scenes.
TEAM FDL!! Rocks.
Andres Perez @
143
My memory is that Libby’s teams did most of the selecting, Fitz was relatively passive throughout the jury selection process.
HotFlash, I thank you.
I am stepping out on faith [the Bible capital F faith kind] that if I withdraw to tend to myself, others will step forward with an understanding of the urgency of the issues. My mental health and physical health and perhaps more depends on my belief that others will take up where I have left off.
I am depending on the kindness of strangers.
I thank you, anonymous people, who are giving yourselves battlefield promotions to the next higher level of political and socio-economic involvement so that I can in good conscience rest a spell. I am more than willing to burn the candle at both ends and even melt it down if necessary. Hoping that won’t be necessary.
Time to hit the tip jar!
I speak for my self only. I must talk about injustice past and present, and threats to peace. We all do what we have to do. ;0)
Fitz’s “silent ways” have to do with the fact that while he may be a star to us Firedoggies he has no intention of becoming a Media Plaything. He’s the opposite of Brittany Spears.
A good Catholic Boy who observes Ash Wednesday?
Hmm. Maybe I should take him to a Robert Bresson double feature on our Dream Date.
John Forde @ 156
I think that made me lightheaded.
BTW, Prairie and I are both from Fargo.
FDL lunches every couple of weeks around here.
[Mod Note; Please don’t quote this comment]
Bush may pardon Libby but many of us never will.
Marcy, I didn’t realize you hadn’t been in the courtroom at all. You certainly earned it!
I just read your description of yesterday’s events on The Next Hurrah and it was fantastic – I highly recommend it to one and all.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..dness.html
I’m sure it was no coincidence that TeamUSA got under Well’s skin and he must be kicking himself right now for falling for it. (I’m sure Libby is not pleased.)
Thanks so much for all the live blogging you did – you did an amazing job.
Oh no, zigs.
Okay, I think it was Bob Shrum on Hardballs, just said the phrase: ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK describing Hillary’s strategy against critics.
TRex should charge him a fee.
To those who are nervous because the jury did not reach a verdict the first day of deliberations: It took six (6) days for the jury to reach unanimity against Ken Lay.
It took four (4) days for the jury to reach unanimity in the Michael Jackson case.
These high-level cases take days to unfold. Take it easy. Relax. It is no indication of anything if no verdict is reached tomorrow, or the next day, or the next. Just try to be patient.
Phoenix Woman @ 134
Technically, a pardon is irrelevant to this scenario. After Scooter is convicted, sentenced, and his appeals are over, Fitz could simply subpoena Scooter to testify before the grand jury. If Scooter balks and asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege, Fitz could grant him immunity, which would remove that excuse for not testifying. After all, if you’ve already bagged him and he is serving time for the perjury/obstruction, why not grant him immunity and force him to either testify or do additional time for committing contempt for refusing to testify after having been granted immunity? This is a tough guy tactic, but Fitz may just be the man to do it.
John Forde @ 156
Be still my thumping heart! *g*
As much as I and of course, many others here, would dearly love to see this come about, here’s where I stand right at this moment:
I haven’t got a clue what is gonna happen next!
I don’t mean that in any way to disparage your prediction. I just mean that right now we all seem to be standing on the cusp of something, but that we know not what this coming future holds.
Kinda exhilarating, but also unsettling.
Could be we’re on the brink of something big, could be we’re on the brink of nothing at all.
I wonder how long I can hold my breath? *g*
egregious, please take care of yourself. Your patients are counting on you, and so especially is your family. As you are family here, please don’t be too harsh on yourself. Peace to you.
SXSW @ 171
I am wondering if a WH fear of this kind of scenario would prevent them from pardoning him until early 2009. Also, what are Scooter’s chances of staying out of jail on bail until the appeals process plays out?
new thread
John Casper @ 160
If what you say is true, it was a mistake by Fitz, since whites from any city are much more likely to be sympathetic for Bush than blacks are.
Andres Perez @ 170
Thanks very much.
bmaz @ 150
Hmm! If Fitz has just indicted Cheney…and Libby is pardoned…wouldn’t that compel Libby to testify without Fifth Amendment protections? Could he be sent back to jail if he lies again?
I think that the pardon, if premature, could actually pose big problems for Bush and Cheney. If Fitz terminates his investigation then Bush could pardon, although there would be political fallout.
So he might wait on that score until the election was over. Or if Fitz announces that the “sand-throwers” have won (very doubtful) and that he cannot proceed with his duties after the Libby verdict…well then I’d imagine a quick pardon.
But that still opens up Libby to testify in the Plame civil suit.
And Fitz could still insist that he provide unperjured testimony in his investigation…and report to Congress. Yes, Fitz can issue a report and recommendations to Congress…about his case, and also about where he views laws, like the IAIP Act to be insufficient to protect covert agents, or to be able to prosecute.
Dear Moderator,
I’m hoping it was too many imbedded quotes and not something I said.
OT I found this little gem over at Juan Cole’s place:
It encapsulates the essence of our experience in Iraq: the blind leading the blinder.
John Forde @ 179
John, I’m betting it was my comment that took the quotes to the limit.
Will Bush break his silence on the Libby case after a verdict is reached? If Libby is found guilty, my sense is Bush will praise Libby’s service and not comment further claiming Libby is still has an appeal process to go through. The larger question is will Bush ever face tough questioning on the behaviour of officials in his administrations in the Plame matter?
ReneND @ 181
Rene, How can I contact you? Email me by clicking on my name and emailing me thru my webpage.
Hugh @ 180
Dilbert summarizing the data for top management:
Jello is good.
sferris@182 – As Atrios would say: simple answers for simple questions – NO.
David @ 86- Thanks for Triage!
Jeralyn Merritt wrote a column in the Huffington Post saying she believes Libby should be acquitted. At least that is what I took from it.
she says that if Libby is acquitted she will be disappointed but the blame falls to Fitz. Has anybody had any thoughts about why (besides being a defense attorney) she said this? It just seems so depressing. Just wondering…
SXSW @ 171
this is such a good point
There have been a number of comments posted on this thread claiming to be from trial lawyers – some with a lot of experience. Most if not all pontificate on how the lawyer posting would never put on the sort of ‘failed’ effort for that lawyer’s client as did Wells. As an experienced trial lawyer I say this:
1. It seems to me the working assumption on this thread is that the CONSENSUS from those who attended the trial in person is the prosecution won the Battle of the Summations.
Even if true, the Battle is not the War.
2. I am inclined to accept that consensus; but I recognize my personal bias in favour of the prosecution, or more precisely, against the group of which the Defendant is a member. I also recognize that in the last two presidential elections the candidate I favoured never received the oath of office.
From this and other signs, I judge that there appear to be many out there who do not share my viewpoint.
3. I have not seen enough information on the members of this jury to know which – if any – hold views or values which might hold some suggestion on how they might be inclined – for one side or the other in this case. Some may be sufficiently objective – or so close to neutral that there is no difference – that they might actually decide on the strength of the evidence instead of how jurors with preconceptions make decisions.
4. The best that can be said of the respective performances of the four attorneys who spoke at the jury yesterday is that in the views of those who are obsessed with this case the two attorneys for the prosecution took better advantage of the inherent advantage the government is given in federal criminal cases of speaking first and last and the two for the defence did not. That impression may say more about the dynamics of the respective teams of lawyers than the lawyering abilities of any of the individuals that spoke yesterday. To be plain – Zeidenberg clearly was working under Fitzgerald and the product of both showed that, whereas nothing like that sort of hierarchy applied to Team Libby.
5. To the extent that anything might be garnered from the general characteristics of this jury is that it appear to be made up of folks who are better educated – I really think MUCH better educated – compared to typical or most juries, and if anything are inclined more to the ‘geek’ profile than to any others, such as the profiles of nerds, bleeding hearts, rednecks, etc.
6. I note that three of the four attorneys who spoke to this jury in summation appear to have spoken with the assumption of this ‘geek’ profile in mind – and of them one – Fitzgerald- had the perspicacity to label himself a ‘geek’.
7. I note that the make up of this jury is FAR, FAR from typical for a D.C. jury – and that the one attorney who did NOT speak to this jury with the ‘geek’ assumption in mind used, as he is known to use, a style proven extremely successful before juries with make ups that ARE typical of D.C. – among many other major American cities.
8. The membership of each legal team was far from accidental. In the case of the prosecution, Fitzgerald picked a team from his office and he himself was hand-picked by a law school classmate with this sort of performance in mind. In the case of Team Libby, given several attractions – money being far from the least of them – Libby could pretty much hand pick its membership.
9. All that suggests that the outcome of yesterday’s battle was preordained by the quality of the choices as to who would sum up.
I am not inclined to blame Wells for being Wells, any more than I am inclined to praise Fitzgerald for being Fitzgerald. Like almost everything else in this story, the outcome of the Battle of the Summations was decided by a clever and devious person who suffers from serious deficiencies in wisdom and judgment and so often falls prey to a tendency to outsmart himself.
The outcome of this trial cannot be blamed on or credited to any of the lawyers, the judge, or any of the witnesses. Only to Libby.
GrandmaJ @ 187
GrandmaJ; fyi there was a lot of discussion on this topic in this morning’s “Jury Instructions and Free Form Live Blog thread.”
Sparkles the Iguana @
34
Where were the stories on getting Cheney? All the stories I saw were about a sealed indictment against Karl Rove.
LabDancer @ 189
Very nice summation Counselor!
John Forde @183
Sent note to info@. Hope that was the right place.
Well, I hope the investigation continues and thus that (as much as I would like to hear anything Fitz says) his press conference is boring. One thing still really bugs me and that is this whole business about “insta-declassification.” I remember hearing about Cheney being authorized to declassify stuff, but I thought it was well after the events of outing Plame. And as someone else said, there surely is some sort of process other than Darth just saying it. So it would be interesting to know the sequence of events with regard to the leaking vs the declassification of both the NIE and Plame’s identity.
GrandmaJ @ 187
Jeralyn doesn’t have a very good track record with her predictions. Personally, I think she likes to be controversial.
Her take on Well’s first “at bat” yesterday was that he had good body language. This was while he wasted 20 minutes defending himself as a high priced defense attorney – not laying out his client’s innocence.
GrandmaJ @
187
Jeralyn Merrit’s column is crap. She says that Memory is fragile and affected by many things, including but not limited to the passage of time.
But a few witnesses forgetting one event each, cannot be compared to one person forgetting 9 conversations in which he either informed someone of, or heard from someone about, Valerie Plame’s status at the CIA.
Is Merritt that stupid? Does she think Libby forgot discussing Fleischer 3 days before he “learned it anew” from Russert?
And don’t forget that the one common event that these few witnesses were 100% sure about was that Libby discussed Plame with them.
Prairie Sunshine @
98
No thanks, I seen the movie.
RossK @ 142
I’m looking forward to that one, let me tell you. It’ll be a schadenfreude special.
Craig Shergold @ 197
Oh funny, I swear I’m the only one from Fargo who liked that movie.
But I’m sure you know that it wasn’t filmed here. Brainerd minnesota, I think.
Fargo is just like a minneapolis suburb, really.
sferris @ 182
Shrub will probably give him a medal!!
-Fern-
Thanks for that Hoisen chicken recipe from late night. I’m getting everything for it to make tomorrow. Sounds wonderful.
ReneND @ 201
Oh good! Hope you enjoy it.
Spectacular historic flawless effort by Firedoglake. A few thoughts and questions:
Does Fitzgerald possess Lincolnesque stature? In the indictment news conference he looked like a mid-sized guy behind a podium, and I never got any other impression, but in some of the recent photos he has seened gigantic. Maybe some of the other lawyers, etc., are puny? But he looks like a 6′4″ hearty Irishman, and if emptywheel’s alpha dog theories are correct, Z’s nipping at Wells’ heels set Fitz up to take the Cryer by the neck and finish him.
FDL’s Lamont effort was so incredible and revolutionary but ultimately bittersweet, who knew it was a prologue for this truly historic trial coverage? Amazing amazing amazing, even more so when JH’s heroic health battle is thrown in. The whole “blogstar” concept is forming right before our eyes, and I think we’re all going to look back quite fondly at the PoliticsTV clips with emptywheel’s hair blowing all over her face, like she was on an early bad date in her relationship with destiny.
Next question: MSM or any other coverage at all of what has happened here? Do we think they’ll catch up when the verdict comes in? I’m thinking in terms of how big an event Fitz’ indictment news conference was, very dramatic and exciting. Well, the scene played out in the summations seems like it all that and more more more, but nobody has said a word. Were there illustrations on the networks–I’d bet the house there weren’t. Big dramatic news moment with a solid, great American character Fitz playing it with Capra/Jimmy Stewart (also tall) emotion, and nobody knows about unless they’re reading FDL. We’ll see him on the courthouse steps soon enough I suppose.
GRR Martin is awesome, raising my price on Christy’s already strong stock considerably, and can anyone think of characters from Ice and Fire that resemble Plamegate figures? I’ll start with Judy Miller as the evil queen who sleeps with her brother.
Rick B @ 191
Oh, here we go again. Jason Leopold is like the gambler that places bets on every number on the roulette table, then congradulates himself for picking a winner. He has predicted every possible scenario, in the hope that one of them will turn out correct, then he can claim to have predicted it. It wasn’t much of a stretch to image Cheney was a target, but no one — including him — had anything to report on it with any credibility. His Rove Indictment Imminent is a classic example of this ploy.
Cinnamonape@63 I dunno, I was a tech geek and was on a mock jury in college (never been on a real one). I held out for acquittal because I thought at the time that “proof” had to be close to mathematical certainty. Walton’s description of reasonable doubt was very informative and was NOT part of the instructions I got in the mock case I was on. Frankly I don’t think techies necessarily make such good jurors and I don’t think I’d be that good a juror. Jurors have to be able to size people up and gauge their credibility accurately and figure out what they’re really thinking. Someone like FDL’s Jane is absolutely fantastic at that, most normal folks are pretty good, but geeks like me are terrible; that’s why they call us geeks, because we’re more comfortable in the less ambiguous world of math and computers than in the ocean of self-serving people trying to lie to us in all different ways.
Zhiv @ 203
From what I recollect Jane, Christy, Marcy, Swopa et al saying, there were lots of MSM “reporters” present, but as we’ve all seen, the MSM Power-rangers who actually decide what we’ll see, are all busy snoozing off their 5 martini lunches.
I don’t expect ‘em to wake up unless Deadeye gets indicted or Junya sets fire to the White House.
Some things never change; they go out to lunch…and never come back.
emptywheel,
Genuflect! Genuflect! Genuflect! Thank you!!
But, I do have a QUESTION…
>
I see you are adding to what you originally blogged, and, having no idea of the right way to approach a blogged understanding of what was said, I ask…
Could the ” when” have been an “and” and could the comma after “know” be simply a pause? If so, I think he said it that way … otherwise the phrasing loses me.
I think this is important because I think you reported important words… maybe historic. Maybe the way you heard it and wrote it as you could given the heat and buzz is best and I can understand that.
What is the proticol for bloggiing and correcting blogging and subsequently recording history? I am clueless and leave it to you.
May I conclude with “Genuflect! Genuflect! Genuflect! Thank you!!”
Steve
Sparkles the Iguana @ 17
Best. Comment. Ever.
I found an interesting poll (Pew) in which Americans were asked right after Libby’s indictment wether they thought he was guilty or not. These were the results:
Guilty: 43%
Not Guilty: 15%
Don’t know: 43%
Even among Republicans opinions were split, with 27% of GOP’ers saying he was not guilty, and 25% saying he was guilty.
Hugh @ 180
Remember [Paul O’Neill, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..330.shtml] who said that Bush in a Cabinet meeting was like a blind man in a room full of deaf people?
emptywheel,
Let me start again ( please see 207 above)
If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did
Defendant play. What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don’t you think FBI desesrves straight answers. When you go in [that] jury room, your commonsense will tell you that he made a gamble. He threw sand in the eyes of the FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return [a guilty verdict] you give truth back.
Could the “when” have been an “and” and the comma after “know” have been a pause?
I don’t know what is right to do under the circumstances. If you write you next book, it’s something to decide…here and in other places but definitely here.
once again, Genuflect! Genuflect! Genuflect! Thank you!!
Fitz unlike Starr is a Special Counsel and not an Independent Counsel. Fitz is still a U.S. District Attorney working for Gonzalez.
I wonder if Gonzalez can fire him or reassign him off the case. He can certainly fail to reappoint him at the end of his term. There has been a lot of this happening lately- U.S. Attorney’s on sensitive cases not being reappointed.
Thank You Marcy!
beyond any standard of measurement,
just, THANK YOU!
You are truly special.
Yes, I got your book – from a local bookstore at least a couple weeks ago.
And I warned them they’d need more.
Can’t wait to go back, if we can just get out the driveway thru the snow, and see if they did.
The bookmeisters at the store acted really interested when I told them about the book, just as the trial got underway.
Sequel?
Oh heck. Hug the doggie, get some good uninterrupted sleep at HOME, then think about that. Safe trip, hon. ;->
If Gonzalez fired Fitz, could Congress hire him as an Independent Counsel?
GrandmaJ @
187
I find Jeralyn’s opinion to be without merritt (pun intended), kinda like those right wingnuts on Nov. 7th telling the American voters they made a BIG mistake by replacing the dysfunctional majority in congress.
I think Jeralyn is shamelessly canvassing for the opportunity to defend Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz – pick one (Fitz will take them down, one by one like Guinness on a hot day)
By minimizing Fitz, she is saying that she can win against him, something I don’t think any sober defense lawyer believes after watching the best tag team – Zeidenburg & Fitzgerald – make a mockery of Libby’s 8 million defense.
That’s why Wells & Jeffres capitulated and began patting themselves on the back – Perry Mason Moment – HAH
During the rebuttal, I think (but cannot confirm) Libby scribbled, “Can I get Mr. Mason to handle my appeals?”
Jeralyn, since you were so awed by Wells’ “sobbing act”, perhaps you will use it in your next summation.
Will this ever make it to youtube? I would pay to watch the prosecutors’ summations.
David Ehrenstein @ 164
Good match of man and movie. Cool heads, ardent hearts. Or, you could go for the Rosselini, The Little Flowers of St Francis. What a movie!
You HotFlash @ 116
KNOW you gotta include an accordion, for Fitz himself.