Marcy!

Go Marcy!

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

fitz?

emptywheel!

Wells’ behavior yesterday afternoon is extremely significant. From the description of it that Jane, Christy and Marcy provided in the fabulous PoliticsTV piece last night, Wells acted like a lawyer who had already lost his case: he sat, head in hands, not looking up, during Fitz’ entire summation (even during sidebar conferences). And equally bad, he and Jeffries displayed conflict within the defense team. Not the way a team acts when they think they are winning.

These non-verbal cues likely gave at least some members of the jury the impression that things were not going Libby’s way, and that the defense thought that the prosecution was making the more compelling case.

And they certainly gave me the impression that Wells himself believes that he already lost case.

From RBG and Peterr:

Merry Fitzmas

Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.

1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the topic of the current live blogging.

2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum — especially during live blogging.

3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that comment to get caught in moderation.

4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3 quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for the people behind the scenes.

5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to keep things from getting caught in moderation.

6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.

Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.

Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?

Thanks.

Also, from Peterr’s rules — “The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”

James Meek with NY Daily News is on c-span’s Washington Journal discussing the Libby case and taking call-in questions.
-

Merry Fitzmas!

Meek gives FDL big kudos on WJ, especially you livebloggers, you.
-

Marcy- your blogging of Fitz’a closing arguments yesterday moved me to tears. Thanks so much for being my eyes & ears for the last few weeks. Here’s to giving Fitz, you and FDL a standing ovation.

on cspan– Meek and a caller give major kudos to FDL for coverage of the trial and Ms. Christy gets mentioned!

It’s a must read he sez, for a lot of people– they are the stars of the show.

me waits for plea deal once the charge is rendered

perris @ 13

me waits for plea deal once the charge is rendered

Ain’t gonna happen. “Pardon ME?”
_

mack @
3

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

Strike force in Gulf, waiting on trial outcome and further investigations.

Marcy — I just want to say thank you for the fantastic job you’ve done not only liveblogging the trial, but the way you’ve so thoroughly covered the whole case. You’re amazing!

PS – I plan on buying your book this weekend!

Here’s an invitation. If the server load gets high today (though prolly not as likely as yesterday during that awesomely moving summation liveblog by EW), you may wanna join some of us at a live-chat on another server, over at http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.comIt’s a fun kinda chat-app. Using it doesn’t burden FDL’s servers at all. We had as many as 67 folx in there at one point yesterday! It’s a good place to discuss any sort of Libby-related stuff at a far faster pace than is possible in these threads.

Rayne introduced it and imho it’s cool. Sometimes we get harrassed by hackers, in which case we retreat to a private redoubt. Others of us know how to get its URL to you without publishing it here. If you need its URL, please post your request in an FDL comment string.

If you wanna join us, C U over in chat-land. Remember, because Gabbly runs on a completely other server somewhere on the ‘net, using it takes some of the heavy load off the FDL servers!

Hint: Use two browser windows. Put the above URL in one, and the real FDL (this one) in the other. Position the windows where you can see both the chat about FDL and the real FDL. Refresh only the REAL FDL window.

Go FDL and Godspeed.

cbl, if you’re here, I’m reading the interview you linked to for me…can’t out it down

I had a great time yesterday Marcy. I took a vacation day and I was on Firedoglake all day long! It was so exciting. Best action in town all around.

Best.Vacation.Day.Ever.

This should be interesting. I re-read the indictment this morning, and I’m curious to see how closely the charges as told to the jury will match the wording – or as Fitz calls it, ‘the four corners’ – of the indictment.

I was struck by how well-structured the indictment charges are, in particular how little they rely on whether Miller, Cooper, and Russert’s memories are reliable or not. Instead they all rely on a comparison of Libby’s testimony against the fact that multiple government officials remember having conversations with him about Plame in the weeks leading up to the leak.

I think it’s plausible that Count 3 (False Statement) wrt to Cooper’s testimony could come is as ‘Not Guilty’, because that charge is the one that relies most heavily on Cooper’s memory, but even that one references Libby’s insistence that he believed he had heard of Plame’s CIA employment from reporters.

The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt, given the multiple conversations Libby had with various officials and CIA briefers over the weeks prior to Plame’s outing.

So, assuming the jury instructions match the wording of the indictment, I think the jury will return a guilty verdict on at least 4 of the counts.
.

Cheney in the library with a butter knife.

this little hippie is counting on -

Patrick Fitzgerald in the courtroom with a lead pipe !

now maintaining radio silence and going over to Gabbly

((((mods))))

logorrhea @ 16

Marcy — I just want to say thank you for the fantastic job you’ve done not only liveblogging the trial, but the way you’ve so thoroughly covered the whole case. You’re amazing!

PS – I plan on buying your book this weekend!

By all means, buy it. I read it almost in one sitting. Riveting. I will repeat what I said yesterday; the importance of the work done here by Marcy, Jane, Christy et al cannot be overstated, given that the MSM have now largely become Soviet Pravda.
_

Guess Baker Botts likes one the alternates better, so this guy just shows up on the last day!?! Right.

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Gotta find the original writer, but here’s my version:

FDL goals:
On-topic, bitty
Don’t feed the trolls
Do feed the kitty.

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

Perris, I’m over here

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

she’s a defense lawyer. her inclinations are naturally filtered through such a perspective. (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

She’s playing both sides of the street so she can say I was right.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

I really enjoyed reading Jeralyn’s analysis during this trial. She really is an expert and is extremely intelligent.

That being said, Jeralyn has often been quite wrong in her predictions. Such as her belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify, to give just one example.

My amateur prediction is that Jeralyn will be proven wrong in this assessment as well.

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question.

Is there a conventional wisdom as to a connection between the length of jury deliberations and their judgment in favor of the prosecution or the defendant?

If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Is Jeralyn being a Devil’s Advocate or a Concern Troll? You decide.

[Mod Note; let’s be very careful how we use the “T” word please]

pseudonymous in nc @
31

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Basing my statement on what I have read recently on various FDL threads, a charge based on multiple false statements is valid if one of the statements can be proven false beyond reasonable doubt.

bookworm @ 24: I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment. A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

See my post @ 20. It contains the same ‘talking points’ as the response I posted at Talkleft to Jeralyn’s assessment. (It’s, or was, response 11 over at Talkleft, but it seems to be gone now, possibly it’s in the moderation queue since my account there is new.)

NEW CONTEST: When will Dick Cheney resign – month/day/year?

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Jeralyn’s article reads in part like a defense summation – which is fine – those are her instincts as a defense lawyer.

However, I feel that she is wrong on the memory issue – I thought Team Fitz did an excellent job of pointing out why the memory defense was implausible in this case. Also – if human memory is THAT unreliable – it seems to undermine the whole foundation of a legal system based in large part on fallible human memory.

EW/Jane–Is Fitz wearing ashes on his forehead?

dmg @ 26

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

…so-o-o, my inkling is correct, that such a move could be a hail-mary-pass by the defense? After some seriously deep combing thru jury member backgrounds, teamlibby might have gone & fetched up a “special order” xtra “atty” just to hang around & be an excuse to throw s’more sand?

*xyz @ 32: “If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question. … If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.”

I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says that a lengthy deliberation would indicate possible disagreement among the jurors, and would tend result in more favorable outcomes for the defense.

Short deliberations are probably just as likely to go either way, but I agree with you, it would be nice to hear from one of the lawyers on that question.

Christy? Jeralyn? Bueller?

Jeralyn is expecting a ‘normal’ vigorous defense. It seems to me (IANAL) that the defense in this case has been hobbled. Scooter insists on taking fall for the Gipper. Wells frustrated, can’t do his job, can’t call Scooter, Cheney, etc. And he’s a Dem so they can blame the Dems. Dude!

Whew! I feel better with a little help from my friends..re: Jeralyn’s prediction. Thanks.

*xyz @ 30

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

I really enjoyed reading Jeralyn’s analysis during this trial. She really is an expert and is extremely intelligent.

That being said, Jeralyn has often been quite wrong in her predictions. Such as her belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify, to give just one example.

My amateur prediction is that Jeralyn will be proven wrong in this assessment as well.

I have known a number of criminal defense attorneys. A couple are good friends who have taken very high profile difficult cases. All extremely progressive/liberal politically. They are truly a breed unto themselves; in order to do their job well, they are conditioned to be skeptical of everything that comes from the government. And they also live in a world in which they often loose, as EPU has so often pointed out, the system (in normal criminal trials) is weighted heavily in favor of the Government.

With that in mind, I think Jeralyn is simply looking at this case as she would any case, as a defense attorney. Remember that she defended Timothy McVeigh, and did that in such a conscientious way that she continued to defend him even when he did not want to be (during the death penalty phase). And I really admired her for that, because I am such an ardent opponent of the death penalty; even for the likes of Timothy McVeigh.

AGAIN….what Jeralyn is doing is just being a suck-up to defense attorney jargon and games. Remember her defense of some of the most indefensible characters on her blog. Sorry all….but FDL has been a constant light and beacon for truth and FACTS…right now Jeralyn is ignoring facts so she can have it both ways. She does it on shows where she has appeared ALL THE TIME>…..

Jeralyn says (in her post’s conclusion),
“The smartest thing the defense did at trial was not to put Libby on the stand and subject him to what surely have been a withering cross-examination by Fitzgerald. The dumbest thing the Government did was charge too narrow a case and not indict Cheney along with Libby.
In other words, Fitzgerald missed the forest for the trees. Maybe he thought the case wasn’t there. But in charging such a stripped down version solely against Libby, I have to believe at least one juror, like me, will have a reasonable doubt and refuse to convict.
Will I be disappointed if there’s an acquittal? Yes, but in Fitzgerald, not the system. And if there’s a conviction? Then I’ll be disappointed in the Judge, for refusing to allow a memory expert to testify at trial. As much as I might prefer it otherwise, this case was about memory and reasonable doubt, not about the conspiracy that was proven to exist at the Administration’s highest levels of power.”

As Amb. Wilson said in the previous thread (in response to discussion about the focused parameters of this case), “They convicted Al Capone of tax evasion, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racketeer.”

I do not agree with Jeralyn that this case was about “memory and reasonable doubt”– and I think it is just the first step in a series of upcoming indictments. Guilty or Not Guilty, I definitely will not be disappointed in Fitzgerald!

Many thanks for all the good work, ladies!

Where will you wait for the verdict?

Just a not of thanks to the FDL crew, your work has been historic. I’ll lurk about from now on, but leave the comments to the experts. Thanks again, and start preparing for future events like this one, no telling where it will all end. But it surely won’t end here, this is just the clearing of the smokescreen, the removal of sand from our eyes.

Now we can see through the fog, and a very guilty Cheney seems to be coming into view.

We are all looking forward to your coverage of both Shooter and Turdblossom but I doubt they’ll be hiring Wells for their defense team…

At the risk of being redundant, I want to thank you for providing this coverage. Incredibly, I had to change from MSNBC and CNN to Cold Pizza to get away from another courtroom, “Nicole’s Body” hearing. If you haven’t, this judge would make Judge Judy look like Brandies. Whether we win(Libby Guilty and possibly go further) or lose your efforts were nothing less than outstanding. You have put me behind though. During Jury selection I started to tear up a bathroom for remodeling and it is still tore up. The verdict will be soon. I will be able to work euphorically or with pissed off determination.

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury. William Jeffress more than adequately established the memory problems of all the witnesses in the case. The bottom line is, who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”

1. Of course the defense attorney appears to believe in his own argument. That’s why they pay him the big bucks. And others have contradicted Jeralyn somewhat, pointing out that the crying seemed fake and Wells’ generally came across as over-the-top. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say. Also, I’ve heard that Fitzgerald was pretty emotional too – doesn’t that count for anything? It would, if this was an acting contest, which it is not.

2. “who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”
Well, the jury is to say. That’s their job. They can look at motive. And they can look at the odds. It is Libby’s word against over a half-dozen witnesses.

JGabriel @ 20

The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt, given the multiple conversations Libby had with various officials and CIA briefers over the weeks prior to Plame’s outing.

FYI, Scooter doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of the Russert call is credible. Fitz has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter’s version of the call was knowingly false.

However, given that Scooter’s version of the call is inherently incredible, and Russert’s testimony on the call was not budged during cross (despite his failure to return a phone call six years ago), I think Fitz gets a conviction on this count.

JGabriel @ 39

*xyz @ 32: “If there are any trial lawyers out there, I have a quick question. … If so, which side is favored by short deliberations? Which by lengthy ones? Thanks.”

I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says that a lengthy deliberation would indicate possible disagreement among the jurors, and would tend result in more favorable outcomes for the defense.

Short deliberations are probably just as likely to go either way, but I agree with you, it would be nice to hear from one of the lawyers on that question.

Christy? Jeralyn? Bueller?

IANAL, but I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…

I really do appreciate Jeralyn’s participation here, as it is always helpful to have multiple perspectives and to challenge our assumptions, especially in this situation when we have such deeply felt convictions propelling our wishful thinking.

BUT, let’s remember that Jeralyn is not only a defense lawyer, but a contrarian by nature.

Moreover, her comcluding paragraph says she will be disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction, either way. That makes no sense to me.

pseudonymous in nc @
31

If govt proves every element of offense beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find guilty.

That’s not quite so clear-cut with the false statements, is it? Or am I wrong in thinking that the charges based on multiple statements are valid if one statement can be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

I recall that the instructions negotiated was that there were multiple NECESSARY elements (intent, valid memory, reliability of testimony/evidence, etc.), and several “false statements” embedded within one of the charges, any one of which, if true, would be SUFFICIENT to establish that element.

One of the charges had four false statements, any one of which would be sufficient to prove THAT element.

From Jeralyn at HuffPost:

In the end, this trial must be ruled by the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. The charges the Government brought against Libby are narrow and specific as to the exact statements about which he allegedly lied. In the end, no smoking gun was introduced to establish Libby lied as opposed to being mistaken. The lack of evidence presented must be held to work against the Government.

Hmm. Jeralyn?

Pectopah, from your #39 on the previous thread:
I have actually seen a bumper sticker that read “I support that guy in China who makes all the magnetic yellow ribbons.” This was about 2 years ago.

We have a posse of very clever ladies delivering us our information.

I do not recall discussion about there being any possible connection between Mrs Wilson’s appearance and Cheney’s irresponsible “outing”. We have seen how Cheney visited Arlington a lot during this period —— what price one his pals sneering? It would be just the sort of thing the P of Scum would like.

jgabriel @ 20: “The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt …”

litagatormom @ 49: “FYI, Scooter doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of the Russert call is credible. Fitz has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter’s version of the call was knowingly false.

However, given that Scooter’s version of the call is inherently incredible … I think Fitz gets a conviction on this count.”

Umm, not sure of your point here, litagatormom. ‘Not credible’ and ‘incredible’ are pretty synomymous, as far as I can see. It wasn’t my intent to suggest that Scooter had to prove his innocence, but that Fitz had proved the incredibility of Scooter’s ‘as if for the first time’ assertion, beyond a reasonable doubt – in my opinion, anyway.

(I’m trying to see how you read my post as saying Scooter had to prove he was credible, but I’m not quite getting it. Please explain, if it’s not too OT.)

> I’m not a trial lawyer, but common sense says
> that a lengthy deliberation would indicate
> possible disagreement among the jurors, and
> would tend result in more favorable outcomes
> for the defense.

Speaking as a lay citizen, I would think that any jury deliberating a known high-profile national-security case would take their time to work through the charges and testimony. And there is a lot of conflicting testimony to consider. So if they don’t come back in 30 minutes with “not guilty” I would expect them to take at least 3 days regardless of the outcome.

Cranky

The Michael Jackson jury deliberated for four days (20 hours) before finding him not guilty of rape.

So don’t get nervous if after 2 or 3 days nothing happens.

Jerelyn is merely making the arguments fot the opposition. As a good attorney she leaves her emotions at the door. I suspect we are close to arguing that she is partisan for the other side. Wrong!

dmg @ 28

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

she’s a defense lawyer. her inclinations are naturally filtered through such a perspective. (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

I’m a defense lawyer too (though in the civil context, mostly) and I think there will be conviction on at least some counts. What surprises me most about Jerralyn’s assessment is not that she sees opportunity for reasonable doubt — there is almost always the possibility that at least one juror will find some — but that she thinks Walton erred in not letting the defense put on a memory expert. There may be some need for a memory expert when you are talking about prosecutions based on recovered memories of long-ago abuse. Blocking out a traumatic event for years and years, and recovering it suddenly, is something beyond the experience of most people, and requires some explaining. But an expert to opine that people can forget stuff? Everyone forgets stuff. Everyone has forgotten that their spouse told them a week ago that s/he would be out for dinner on Wednesday. Everyone has forgotten a doctor’s appointment. Everyone forgotten a conversation they had a month ago about something that didn’t seem important at the time. And everyone knows that when they are crazy busy or stressed, something is more likely to “slip their mind.”

In short, unlike recovered memory, the possibility of forgotten conversations is easily understood by lay people. The question is, do the facts proven at trial support, or disprove, that the defendant in this case forgot about a particular conversation or conversations? Is it possible that, given the number of conversations, the defendant’s own written notes, etc., that the defendant really forgot?

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

“belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify”

Sorry to gloat, but I don’t know ANYONE, including a small gaggle of lawyers, who really expected Cheney to testify, even when they were telling the judge it would happen.

Cheney under oath?

He would simply never submit to that, he’s got too many secrets and lies to hide. Getting Cheney under oath will require our most powerful legal eagles to bring the hammer down.

But, of course, Deadeye IS above the law. Just ask the Wall Street Journal. Or his pal with the scattergun scars.

Rich @ 50

I really do appreciate Jeralyn’s participation here, as it is always helpful to have multiple perspectives and to challenge our assumptions, especially in this situation when we have such deeply felt convictions propelling our wishful thinking.

BUT, let’s remember that Jeralyn is not only a defense lawyer, but a contrarian by nature.

Moreover, her comcluding paragraph says she will be disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction, either way. That makes no sense to me.

Contrarian by nature, disappointed whether there is an acquittal or a conviction – I have to agree. I’ve seen her on talking head shows since the early days of the OJ Simpson debacle trial. There’s something about her commentary I’ve always liked but it’s not usually her conclusions – they don’t seem to follow the observations she’s presenting. It’s like she’s arguing with herself.

Adie @ 50: “I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…”

Thanks, Adie. Guess my ‘common sense’ was wrong. C’est la vie.

Jeralyn, I’d guess, is thinking like a lawyer. But do jurors think like lawyers? Or do they think like ordinary people? As an ordinary, nonlawyer person, I think the prosecution made a very strong argument when they said that it’s not each witness’ recollection vs. Libby’s, but the cumulative effect of nine people’s recollections vs. Libby’s. I think they also made their case by pointing out that Scooter “Faulty Memory” Libby remembered lots of things in fine detail — Valerie Plame was the only thing he couldn’t remember. Common sense says, “What are the odds that all these people are wrong?” and “What are the odds that Libby is forgetful only about this one thing?”

I agree that Jeralyn is a contrarian by nature & that Jeralyn’s predictions are very often wrong.

*xyz @ 48

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury.”

Frankly, I’m mystified by Jeralyn seeming to fall for this obvious ploy. Does she honestly think Wells – tough, experienced, seasoned as he would surely be at this stage of his career – does she actually buy that tearful act?!

I find myself shedding real tears for our soldiers every day but, for Libby???! C’monnnn! I’m betting that jury has their emotions filed appropriately. As for Wells? tears? schmears! *snort*

JEP @ 62

“belief in the strong likelihood that Cheney and Libby would testify”

Sorry to gloat, but I don’t know ANYONE, including a small gaggle of lawyers, who really expected Cheney to testify, even when they were telling the judge it would happen.

Cheney under oath?

He would simply never submit to that, he’s got too many secrets and lies to hide. Getting Cheney under oath will require our most powerful legal eagles to bring the hammer down.

But, of course, Deadeye IS above the law. Just ask the Wall Street Journal. Or his pal with the scattergun scars.

Jeralyn seemed to think Cheney would testify. But you’re absolutely right, most people did not expect him to testify.

bookwoman @ 24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

My opinion is Jeralyn lives in a very fuzzy world. Early on, when I first was acquainting myself with blogs, I visited Talk Left and read a few if her posts, and found some points that didn’t make sense. I remember that I commented something like “So am I crazy or…” and she answered no I wasn’t crazy, she misspoke. I think she does that a lot. I can tell you that at that time I was high most of the time. Yet even in my (sort of)altered state, I could discern her mistakes. Due to a medical condition, I can’t do that anymore, but I sure wish I could and that I had some of whatever it is she’s on, because I think it must be really good stuff!

The converstation that should have occurred…

Russert to Libby; “Yeah, all the reporters know it”

Libby, “well, hell yes, Tim-boy, I TOLD THEM!”

JGabriel @ 56

jgabriel @ 20: “The other four counts include that assertion about reporters, plus Libby’s assertion that he was hearing it ‘as if for the first time’. That last phrase is simply not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt …”

litagatormom @ 49: “FYI, Scooter doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of the Russert call is credible. Fitz has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Scooter’s version of the call was knowingly false.

However, given that Scooter’s version of the call is inherently incredible … I think Fitz gets a conviction on this count.”

Umm, not sure of your point here, litagatormom. ‘Not credible’ and ‘incredible’ are pretty synomymous, as far as I can see. It wasn’t my intent to suggest that Scooter had to prove his innocence, but that Fitz had proved the incredibility of Scooter’s ‘as if for the first time’ assertion, beyond a reasonable doubt – in my opinion, anyway.

(I’m trying to see how you read my post as saying Scooter had to prove he was credible, but I’m not quite getting it. Please explain, if it’s not too OT.)

You said that Scooter’s version of the Russert call was “not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt.” I thought, but may have misread what you meant as a result of comma placement. All I meant was that Fitz has the burden, and that he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter knowingly lied. Fitz presented credible evidence that Scooter’s version, as described in his GJ testimony and FBI interview, was false, and that he had to known it was false. That’s what I meant by incredible. Sorry if I was confusing.

bookwoman @
24

I’m not lovin’ Jeralyn’s assessment

A bummer if I do say so. Any thoughts?

Jeralyn seems to be misapprehending MEMORY with situation in the case of Dickerson. Dickerson may not have FORGOTTEN that Ari told him…he may not have “heard” Ari tell him…he was distracted or incognizant of the “meaning” or importance of that roadside statement.

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

And before Novak’s accusations actually spelled out in newsprint the not-so-veiled White House “push back” they may not have been all that interested in the Niger yellowcake issue. In fact, news coverage on the Novak revelations were surprisingly sparse and short-lived for most of the summer of ‘03. It wasn’t until September that it really erupted.

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

Litagatormom, that scenario simply wouldn’t wash with most normal people. If your boss is angry about something, you remember it: everyone knows that (which was why Fitz’s focus on the anger in the OVP was so powerful). The only way that I could see that they might make a such an argument plausible was by arguing that Libby was so injured by breathing the foul exhalations of Darth Vader’s bad breath that he had developed PSTD! [snark]

It’s certainly true that Fitz took a risk by going for the very narrow charges against Libby.

He provided a defense “there was no underlying crime so Libby had no motive to lie- he was never in any jeopardy.

Had he gone after BOTH the leaking case AND the perjury- he would have destroyed that defense..

Of course he MAY have had good strategic reasons for doing it the way he did- like compartmentalizing the trial so that the best evidence regarding the leak conspiracy remains confidential. We won’t know for a while- but we have no evidence that Fitz is super human and beyond error. It’s worth having a serious discussion of Jeralyn’s points.

Hey, Jane and I are going upstairs. We’ll update when we get back!!

“Going upstairs” – riiiiight. Munchies to follow.
-

Given the high profile nature of this trial, I expect the jury to take a long time. You don’t want to make a mistake on a jury, and especially not if it’s going to be dissected on the front page of the paper, glaring lights of the studio, and a thousand and one blogs across the internet.

I’m with Cranky Observer @ 58. They’ll take their time, go over all the instructions and the jury response forms multiple times, just to make sure they are reading and doing it right.

Then they’ll send Scooter to a government housing facility and provide him with a new job. How’s his sheet-folding ability?

Nellieh @ 47

At the risk of being redundant, I want to thank you for providing this coverage. Incredibly, I had to change from MSNBC and CNN to Cold Pizza to get away from another courtroom, “Nicole’s Body” hearing. If you haven’t, this judge would make Judge Judy look like Brandies. Whether we win(Libby Guilty and possibly go further) or lose your efforts were nothing less than outstanding. You have put me behind though. During Jury selection I started to tear up a bathroom for remodeling and it is still tore up. The verdict will be soon. I will be able to work euphorically or with pissed off determination.

I turned off KO last night when he got to story about Judge Larry. Perfect example of what is wrong with the justice system.

What time is SMACKDOWN in the PRETTYMAN supposed to start?

Woodhall Hollow @ 73

That’s the question in this case, and no memory expert was needed to mount that defense. Remember, this is not a case about Libby forgetting from June/July to October that he’d talked about Plame with 9 different people. This is a case about Libby “forgetting” in mid-July that he’d been talking about Plame for the immediately preceding four weeks, including the very week he “learned as if for the first time” that all the reporters knew Plame was CIA.

What memory expert was going to be able to opine that THAT scenario was likely?

Litagatormom, that scenario simply wouldn’t wash with most normal people. If your boss is angry about something, you remember it: everyone knows that (which was why Fitz’s focus on the anger in the OVP was so powerful). The only way that I could see that they might make a such an argument plausible was by argueing that Libby was so injured by breathing the foul exhalations of Darth Vader’s bad breath that he had developed PSTD! [snark]

I agree. But perhaps Vice-President Chee-nee, while venting his anger over Wilson and the CIA, also fondled Libby. Libby, traumatized by this abuse, blocked out the entire conversation. Subsequently, every time Plame came up in conversation, his traumatized subconscious brought him back to the hideous moment when Chee-nee fondled him, and he blocked those conversations out too. Only when Timmeh FAILED to mention Plame did Libby’s subconscious recover his knowledge of Plame’s identity. However, in the semi-hallucinagenic rush of recovered memory, Libby erroneously attributed this knowledge to Russert, with whom he was talking at the time, instead of Chee-nee.

I think that might have worked better with the jury. Whaddya think?

Adie @
39

dmg @ 26

so baker botts pulls the old “i have this attorney right here” trick? man, ain’t washington all atwitter.
after the guilty verdict comes in, wonder if broder will write that “fitzpatrick trashed the place, and it wasn’t his place.”

…so-o-o, my inkling is correct, that such a move could be a hail-mary-pass by the defense? After some seriously deep combing thru jury member backgrounds, teamlibby might have gone & fetched up a “special order” xtra “atty” just to hang around & be an excuse to throw s’more sand?

sounds plausible/probable
been re-re-re reading All the Presidents Men, how quaint, and see that nothing is beyond these gopigs.

litagatormom @ 70: “You said that Scooter’s version of the Russert call was “not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt.” I thought, but may have misread what you meant as a result of comma placement. All I meant was that Fitz has the burden, and that he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter knowingly lied.Fitz presented credible evidence that Scooter’s version, as described in his GJ testimony and FBI interview, was false, and that he had to known it was false. …”

I think I was saying the same thing – though perhaps without the emphasis on Fitz’s burden, as I just thought that was common knowledge.

Anyway, I think there’s just some sort of semantic miscommunication here, not sure if it’s due to how I wrote it, but I’ll try to be clearer or more precise going forward.

(Oh, and actually, I just meant the statement ‘hearing it as if for the first time’ was incredible, not the entirety of Scooter’s version. Does that clear up what I was getting at?)

one logical reading of jeralyn’s point, btw, is that, short of a written or taped record of stated intentions, she believes there is never any way to convict on a count of perjury or lying. because it’s all about intent, you see, and the failings of memory.
so i’m not too worried about that. though, of course, it only takes one juror….

JGabriel @ 63

Adie @ 50: “I was a juror several times. My experience definitely did not fit the above “rules”, fwiw. Longest of the bunch, after much wrangling in jury room, turned up guilty all counts. Don’t panic yet, folks…”

Thanks, Adie. Guess my ‘common sense’ was wrong. C’est la vie.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. My own personal experience represents a miniscule sample-size. Maybe average does support your “common sense”. But this is far from an “average” trial, no?! So I’m guessing high likelihood that “normal” rules of thumb wouldn’t necessarily apply.

I’m also privately betting?/hoping all of those jurors take this task very seriously, and will do their best. After a summation like what Fitz gave, it’s highly likely, I’m a-thinkin’, that the jurors will feel strongly compelled to rise to the occasion, regardless of their politics or anything else. These are unsettling times for most people in the country, most certainly including jurors, just mho…

cinnamonape @ 71

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

Didn’t Dickerson go on in an article about how dodgy the food was in Uganda, and how the reporters complained about lack of 4 star accomodations? Given that, I can understand why they did not see Niger as a junket provided by a spouse.

Oh Marcy and Jane…… I have serious withdrawal!

February 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
cinnamonape at 72 says:

Let’s face it…when Bob Woodward was told about Plame by Armitage HE SIMPLY DIDN’T GET IT…he didn’t see why that would be important to the leakers. Armitage had to essentially hit him over the head with WHY. So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message. That could have been either from their not understanding the logic from the viewpoint of the leakers because they wouldn’t see why the CIA would be sending a spouse on a “junket” to Niger (it not being the #1 spot for a holiday……remember Dickerson and Ari were in Uganda and Uganda is 20 times more developed than Niger). Or perhaps they simply weren’t that involved in the Plame case. Lots of reporters still seem woefully incomprehending of the basic facts of the case.

My theory is if an otherwise starving person is spoonfed hamburger every day of the week but one day they are spoonfed ground round, they may have a hard time telling the difference.

“So a lot of reporters were unresponsive to the message.” “Unresponsive” may be a misleading term to use here.

Maybe some of them realized they might be caught up in an illegal “outing” conspiracy if they ran with the little tidbits they were being thrown by the OVP minions.

Because when it came right down to it, Novak happily took the bait, and now he will be considered the actual point where Plame’s covert status was revealed PUBLICLY.

The “secret” he put into print had been floated to many journalists, hoping one of them was sleazy enough to threaten the life of a CIA operative just to get credit for the story.

(”sleazy enough to threaten the life of a CIA operative just to get credit for the story.” I think that may be the Wikkipedia definition for “Robert Novak”…)

So Woodward’s reaction, in not reporting what he had heard, may not have been so much one of complacency, as it was one of extreme caution.

And maybe it really mattered to Woodward and some other real journalists, that the life and work of an American anti-nuke agent could be threatened if he printed what they fed him.

I wonder, are there others out there in writerland who were offered the story, but like Woodward refused to print it because they knew it was WRONG, ILLEGAL and TREASONOUS?

Please, if you are one of these honorable ones, overcome your mortal fears and come forward, and tell the world about it.

dmg @ 82

one logical reading of jeralyn’s point, btw, is that, short of a written or taped record of stated intentions, she believes there is never any way to convict on a count of perjury or lying. because it’s all about intent, you see, and the failings of memory.
so i’m not too worried about that. though, of course, it only takes one juror….

That reading would be exactly what one might expect given her legal background, of course; as has been observed here in the last couple of days, it’s not rare for a defense attorney to try to confuse “reasonable doubt” with what Walton called “scientific certainty.”

(Aside: I don’t personally care for Walton’s usage there, but since it reflects a lay interpretation of the scientific method, I understand why he’d use it for jury instruction. Reasonable doubt, to my mind, corresponds directly to scientific “certainty.”)

First of all, FDLers, your coverage has been truly historic…not only in the mode (liveblogging) but in the content and analysis. Thank you all. You deserved all the great coverage you’ve gotten from the (other) press.

I do believe that if you hadn’t provided this kind of coverage that this trial would have been comandeered to the back pages of the major newspapers, and Anna Nicole would have dominated the news even more…if such a thing is possible. Like someone else, I’ve had to switch from MSNBC to CNN so as not to listen to the god-awful trial being held on the body of Anna Nicole Smith. It harkens back to the days of Chandra Levy. Didn’t the press admit embarrassment over that? Ah,humanity.

Again, thank you. And, it’s inspiring to see a straight-shooter like Fitz practice his craft.

Go Jane, Christy, and Marcy!

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

Wells’s defense is simply that Libby was so preoccupied with macro historical issues that he did not have the time to attend to minor issues of Plame’s status and who said what to whom and when.

litigatormom @ 79

… I think that might have worked better with the jury. Whaddya think?

Hey, it covers the data — I like it! They should have tried that, imho.

Cheney, to Libby:

Oh Scooter, you’re such a Prettyman!

Libby:

AAArrrrgh!!!

LOL

Biodun @ 91

Wells’s defense is simply that Libby was so preoccupied with macro historical issues that he did not have the time to attend to minor issues of Plame’s status and who said what to whom and when.

And that doesn’t seem very credible to me. I’ve seen not the slightest sign that anybody in a position of significant authority within this administration is aware of, let alone preoccupied with, macro-historical issues. If they were, Iraq would have been handled in a totally different way.

QuentinCompson @ 90

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

Grew out my nails in anticipation of this moment. :o)

As for the “wife sent him on a junket” matter, it just upholds my theory that Cheney’s notes weren’t questions for Scooter to find answers to, they were instructions on which angles Scooter and Karl could take to discredit Wilson.

Read it from that perspective, and Cheney’s dibolical personality really shines through. Those notes weren’t questions, they were suggestions on how to shame Joe Wilson in the eyes of the public, particularly our lawmakers who all know very well what the term “junket” implies.

QuentinCompson @ 90

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

May the Force be with us all.

maunga @ 85

Oh Marcy and Jane…… I have serious withdrawal!

iirc, marcy hasn’t been in the courtroom yet… she’s been typing her fingers to the bone from the media room. so this was probably her last chance to be in the court room (for even just a few minutes) before the jury starts deliberations.

many, many thanks marcy et al.! i wish i had as much $$$ as tom freidman – i’d be funding the fdl endowment.

… and speaking of the MSM’s dragging red herrings like Anna Nicole Smith’s dead body across the Libby trial trail (to the detriment of the Crazy Astronaut Love Triangle story), can it be determined whether or not Libby is wearing Depends ™ yet? If not, he damn well should be.

Dickerson, Woodward etc: Why didn’t they think the disclosure important? Simply put, state of mind. When I first heard of the betrayal, my first thought was “WTF? What does her being in CIA have to do with anything.” My other-half said to my logical self that publically betraying V. Plame-Wilson impeaches J. Wilson. Again, I had to ask, “how?”

I just didn’t get it because my weltanschauung/schema/whatever doesn’t include smearing as a part of disputation. There’s a Francois de la Rouchefoucald quote I’m fond of (and which some FRENCHman posted here in FRENCH Phtphtpthphtpht) -it goes like this: Those who are incapable of great crimes do not readily suspect them in others.

Woodieward et. al. didn’t think it was important because they don’t naturally think of a smear as argument.

This and a buck-fitty will get ya a cuppa.

EvilDrPuma @ 96

QuentinCompson @ 90

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

May the Force be with us all.

I will second that!!

Biodun @ 90

Wells’s defense is simply that Libby was so preoccupied with macro historical issues that he did not have the time to attend to minor issues of Plame’s status and who said what to whom and when.

a position fitz filleted with the skill of a ginsu chef. favorite example: the three-hour lunch with ms. miller.

FDLers, you have served America well in the battle to provide information unlike the MSM.
Meek’s comment on C-SPAN’S WJ this morning about FDL were positive and on point. GREAT JOB!!!

My prediction:

short jury deliberation: guilty
long deliberation: not guilty (usually that one [or two] holdout on the jury)

QuentinCompson @
90

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

Funny, because their website doesn’t say a word about the Libby trial…too busy pimping their live internet feed of the Anna Nicole drama.

Just proves that America needs more than luck!

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

Baker Botts is a long-time Bush Family Texas law firm. (James) Baker is the old man’s buddy, legal heavyweight and former Sec of State, and recent co-author of Baker Hamilton Commission Report. Baker was called in to help tilt the 2000 Florida election fiasco in favor of Dubya. So yeah, Baker Botts is good people.

Okay – put me down in the pool for the jury coming back next Monday at 2:00 P.M.

(I need to go back and read the original Indictment before I’m gonna predict the outcomes on each of the Counts).

Adie @
67

*xyz @ 48

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury.”

Frankly, I’m mystified by Jeralyn seeming to fall for this obvious ploy.

Please remember that Jeralyn left the courthouse during the middle of Fitz’s summation, to catch an airplane. Perhaps she did not see that Wells had an emotional breakdown and kept his head in his hands, without looking up, for Fitz’s entire summation. This goes way beyond Wells being passionate in defense of his client. Wells was disengaged and did not participate apparently even in a sidebar conference. This display, along with his 20 minute SELF-defense at the beginning of the defense summation shows to me that he was clearly concerned that he, Wells, has failed in his lawyering, rather than being driven to tears out of genuine love for his client. I suspect that the jurors will also view his theatrics that way.

One thing is for sure, Jeralyn’s contrarian piece succeeded in generating lots of attention here at FDL this morning.

Jane Hamsher @ 104

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

jane,
really, there are no words for all you’ve done.
bending to kiss the hand,
dan

I want to do a joke with “bated breath” but I am strong

linda @ 104

QuentinCompson @
90

CNN sez the jury has it now.

Good luck, America.
-

Funny, because their website doesn’t say a word about the Libby trial…too busy pimping their live internet feed of the Anna Nicole drama.

Just proves that America needs more than luck!

Perhaps later they’ll have this headline:

Scooter Libby: “Ow! My balls!”

JEP @ 95

As for the “wife sent him on a junket” matter, it just upholds my theory that Cheney’s notes weren’t questions for Scooter to find answers to, they were instructions on which angles Scooter and Karl could take to discredit Wilson.

Yeah, that’s what I thought too, and I don’t recall anyone else bringing it up. The question was what arrows to best shoot Wilson with.

(In spite of what I wrote about worldview above, I have since learned how to interpet the actions of demons)

Biodun @ 103

My prediction:

short jury deliberation: guilty
long deliberation: not guilty (usually that one [or two] holdout on the jury)

It just doesn’t work that way. The one jury I served on had a straightforward, open-and-shut case based on a whole hour of presentation, and we still spent an hour and a half dissecting the particulars and making sure we were all on the same page before we issued the guilty verdict we all pretty much knew we’d issue. A conscientous jury will take it’s time to process the case, no matter what the outcome.

So, Marcy, you finally managed to tear yourself away from liveblogging and note-taking and go to the courtroom! ;-)

Have fun, and we’ll eagerly await your return!

I’m going into this pool with a plea for one of the less serious crimes, minimal time, with contingencies requiring flipperoo

Jane Hamsher @ 105

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

Thank YOU for your vision and perseverance. Without FDL who would even know about this trial?

Libby Aquitted!!

Just thought I’d be the first. Since I know there’s no way they didn’t get their slimy tentacles around at least one juror.

motherlowman @ 111

Perhaps later they’ll have this headline:

Scooter Libby: “Ow! My balls!”

You mean, after he meets with Cheney?

And we wait…

Crossing everything that can be crossed,
-S

Hobodeluxe @ 117

Libby Aquitted!!

Just thought I’d be the first. Since I know there’s no way they didn’t get their slimy tentacles around at least one juror.

Not not funny!!!!!

EvilDrPuma @ 118

motherlowman @ 111

Perhaps later they’ll have this headline:

Scooter Libby: “Ow! My balls!”

You mean, after he meets with Cheney?

Remember the “abuse” theory I outlined above?

The jury psychology depends in part, I would think, on the jury themselves. Some of em are eager to get back to work- others are enjoying the break- if you’ve got a large number of professional people on the jury- they will want to get it over with.

Friday is also a psychological barrier. They will try to get it over by Friday and not carry over into another week.

I don’t put too much faith in the short deliberation/long deliberation talk. I was an alternate on a jury in NYC once for a murder trial. There were two eyewitnesses naming the defendant as the shooter, along with plenty of physical evidence. It still took 2 1/2 days of deliberations to find him guilty.

litagatormom: “You said that Scooter’s version of the Russert call was “not credible, beyond a reasonable doubt.””

Okay, let me try this again, cause I think I finally see where where the miscommunication was.

I wasn’t referring to Scooter’s version of the Russert call. I was merely saying that Russert’s memory / testimony didn’t need to be reliable, because the indictment specified in most of the charges that Scooter was lying when he said he was ‘hearing as if for the first time’ the information that Plame was a CIA agent.

Fitz’s showing of all the government officials who spoke with Libby about Plame, and the high frequency of conversations in the period shortly before Plame’s outing, prove – beyond a reasonable doubt (imo) – that Libby’s assertion of ’surprise’ at this news, when he supposedly heard it from reporters, is not credible, or incredible.

Anyway, my understanding is that the jurors must unanimously agree that one of the statements Libby is charged with in a count is a lie, in order to bring a guilty verdict on that charge. They don’t have to agree that Libby lied on all the statements in a charge, one is enough.

So the point I was making was that Libby’s statements that he (a) ‘heard it from reporters’ and (b) ‘as if for the first time’ were each shown by Fitz to be incredible enough – given the testimony from gov’t officials – that Miller’s, Cooper’s, and Russert’s reliability was less important than the contrast between Libby’s testimony and the testimony of Fleischer, Martin, Schmall, Grenier, et. al.

It’s the latter, again in my opinion, that makes Fitz’s case particularly strong, and I thought it was smart of Fitz to structure the indictment so that each of the charges focused on those statements (’heard it from reporters’,’as if for the first time’) rather than just the discrepancies between Libby’s testimony and that of the Miller, Cooper, and Russert.

may justice prevail, at least in some small measure via guilty verdicts.

Thank you Marcy for the update. We all wait with you. And wait. And wait… .

jayt @ 107

Okay – put me down in the pool for the jury coming back next Monday at 2:00 P.M.

(I need to go back and read the original Indictment before I’m gonna predict the outcomes on each of the Counts).

I would like to argue that we not have a pool this time.

We are under a media microscope because of our superior coverage of the trial.

A betting pool would undercut our seriousness and our credibility. ymmv

EvilDrPuma @ 113

Biodun @ 103

My prediction:

short jury deliberation: guilty
long deliberation: not guilty (usually that one [or two] holdout on the jury)

It just doesn’t work that way. The one jury I served on had a straightforward, open-and-shut case based on a whole hour of presentation, and we still spent an hour and a half dissecting the particulars and making sure we were all on the same page before we issued the guilty verdict we all pretty much knew we’d issue. A conscientous jury will take it’s time to process the case, no matter what the outcome.

We should also keep in mind that there are multiple counts, so “short deliberation” should be considered a relative term. And if they’re given forms to fill out detailing their reasoning, that will likely make them take longer to make sure they’ve got everything right.

(I’m not making any predictions one way or the other, though. I’m way too much of an optimist to make accurate predictions.)

fingers crossed. time for another b-list celebrity death!

FANTASTIC JOB, Jane and Marcy and everyone else!

I am sitting here laughing at the image of Scooter taking notes during the instructions. Giving off the message to the jury that he pays close attention to EVERY. LITTLE. DETAIL.

Guilty on at least a few counts. Jury maybe hangs or acquits on the so-called weaker ones. Unanimous not-guilty on all counts? I don’t fucking think so.

I want to know what Marcy thinks. Marcy knows this case like the back of her hand and she’s super intelligent. Thanks Jane, Marcy Christy and all.

I say three days of deliberation and a guilty verdict.

tommy yum @ 129

fingers crossed. time for another b-list celebrity death!

That wouldn’t surprise me and it will be another blond.

JEP @ 86: “’sleazy enough to threaten the life of a CIA operative just to get credit for the story.’ I think that may be the Wikkipedia definition for ‘Robert Novak’…”

Heh. Not sure about Wikipedia, but it would be a fitting epitaph for Novak.

Libby’s fate now rests with the jury – with the “people”.

Considering that Libby, along with all his fellow BushCo cohorts, consider themselves above the people, I find this particularly satisfying.

Now lets hope the “people” do the right thing and convict.

I continue to think that Fitz’s most powerful argument–which was never refuted by the defense–is that you can’t be surprised to hear something on Thursday when you were telling other people about it on Monday and Tuesday. He furthered this point by saying that, even without Russert’s testimony, you could STILL find Scooter guilty based on this fact. There’s not much room for reasonable doubt here.

egregious @
116

Jane Hamsher @ 105

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

Thank YOU for your vision and perseverance. Without FDL who would even know about this trial?

amen. jane, it was your production – you made it happen. many, many thanks.

litigatormom @ 120

Hobodeluxe @ 117

Libby Aquitted!!

Just thought I’d be the first. Since I know there’s no way they didn’t get their slimy tentacles around at least one juror.

Not not funny!!!!!

Makes me sick, the thought that these SOB’s could get away clean. “RICO” “TREASON”

I can see Jeralyn’s points- but I think scoots is gonna get nailed- guilty on all counts.

AZ Matt @ 132

tommy yum @ 129

fingers crossed. time for another b-list celebrity death!

That wouldn’t surprise me and it will be another blond.

I guess that eliminates Britney Spears from contention.

My sincere THANKS for EVERYTHING you’ve all done these past 4 weeks. Based on MSM coverage of this trial, we would NEVER have really known what went on, or what was said in the courtroom.

Will someone stick around near the courtroom and wait to live blog the verdict when it comes in?

EvilDrPuma @ 139

AZ Matt @ 132

tommy yum @ 129

fingers crossed. time for another b-list celebrity death!

That wouldn’t surprise me and it will be another blond.

I guess that eliminates Britney Spears from contention.

Probably a smart move on her part.

Perhaps Cheney is out of the country looking for a new home (preferably in a country that has no extradition agreements with the U.S.).

Libby only took notes periodically. During Hannah’s testimony he only wrote down a few things, which to me did not seem to line up with ‘aha’ moments in the testimony.

Altho I can certainly believe he was extremely attentive to the case, as he faces a bleak future.

First time I’ve seen “bated breath” spelled correctly in about a million years.

I just can’t stand the tension. I knew there was a reason I didn’t go into law.

Congrats to the FDL team. This is still the only place to be.

Jane Hamsher @
105

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

Jane -

Thank you, Christy, Marcy, and too many others to name for all that you did to make this dream come true. :)

I think that one of the first things the jurors will be feeling when they start deliberating is relief. They can FINALLY start talking about the trial they’ve spent the last three weeks sitting through. If I were there, the first thing out of my mouth would be, “Can you BELIEVE this shit?”

This coverage has been historic- actual news coverage in depth from the blogosphere- and very well done. An exclusive! Great job.

It would be interesting for one of the experts to decipher the meter readings.

marcy or jane …..

Did you get a sense of what Walton thought the jury should do during his instructions?

AZ Matt @ 133

tommy yum @ 129

fingers crossed. time for another b-list celebrity death!

That wouldn’t surprise me and it will be another blond.

Did the word already go out? and was Britney worried?

Interested Observer @ 141

Perhaps Cheney is out of the country looking for a new home (preferably in a country that has no extradition agreements with the U.S.).

Interesting thing about Paraguay, as I understand it, is that they will only extradite when capital punishment is off the table. So I guess the Bush Family Ranch proves that they have a sense of irony after all.

Jane S @ 38

He may have decided to do that after the jury took over. Now he has time for it.

Sally @ 149

It would be interesting for one of the experts to decipher the meter readings.

9,500 in the last hour.

21,000 during the hour of Fitzgerald’s closing.

Be harsh on people that have no doubt and had no doubt about what the jury would have done since before the trial started.

The dynamics of the jury room are what you expect when 12 different people get there. I’ve won some trials and lost some trials and often I do so for reasons I could not have really predicted as the trial went along. I’m right more than I’m wrong but I’m wrong a good deal of the time…and I’ve been there for the whole trial.

It sounds like this is a very strong, well presented case by the Prosecution, but nobody knows.

Meanwhile, Cheney has the time for this:

(snip)

Cheney made it clear during an interview with ABC News Wednesday that he was none too pleased with McCain’s declaration on Monday at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C.: “I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of Defense in history.” McCain was greeted with applause.

(snip)

The vice president is on a week-long trip to Japan and Australia and gave a 10-minute interview to ABC’s Jonathan Karl aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, docked off the coast of Tokyo at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan.

(snip)

*xyz @
49

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury. William Jeffress more than adequately established the memory problems of all the witnesses in the case. The bottom line is, who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”

1. Of course the defense attorney appears to believe in his own argument. That’s why they pay him the big bucks. And others have contradicted Jeralyn somewhat, pointing out that the crying seemed fake and Wells’ generally came across as over-the-top. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say. Also, I’ve heard that Fitzgerald was pretty emotional too – doesn’t that count for anything? It would, if this was an acting contest, which it is not.

2. “who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”
Well, the jury is to say. That’s their job. They can look at motive. And they can look at the odds. It is Libby’s word against over a half-dozen witnesses.

Jeralyn is simply saying that a not-unreasonable case can be made for faulty memory in here, and it’s likely that one out of 12 jurors will see things that way. On the other hand, people tend to go with their feelings and to use logic to justify what they feel rather than vice versa. It’s hard to have much sympathy for the slimy conspiracy in which the defendant was involved (but is not now charged), his lawyer theatrics not withstanding.

That said, I would not bet against Jeralyn in this case.

So, what’re the latest firedoglake.com hit/pageview stats regarding this “nutty little trial that nobody cares about”?
_

Strategerie @ 117

And we wait…

Crossing everything that can be crossed,
-S

OUCH!

rwcole @ 147

This coverage has been historic- actual news coverage in depth from the blogosphere- and very well done. An exclusive! Great job.

Amen to that, brother. History has been made. The MSM has become an irrelevant shuck and jive.

Whether he’s acquitted or convicted is less important to me than what this trial did for the public in general. For one, it furthered the legitimacy of the blogosphere while further deconstructing that of the MSM. It opened the door to this administration and exposed the secrecy and dirty dealings, while showing the cozy relationship between them and the so-called “objective” journalists who cover them.

Sadly, the majority of the “public in general” have no clue that it occured…and that is the most shameful aspect of this entire event. That is the true loss here.

new thread

The revolution will not be televised, it will be blogged. These last few weeks here have been quite the education. English is my second language, and seeing the quality of the writing here pretty much humbles me into silence.

My thanks to Firedoglake, truth is on the rise.

Thank you FDL for bringing this trial to us. What an outstanding service you have provided for our country!

I have been following this from the beginning, and cannot wait for the verdict. For me it is the most important trial along with Enron of this decade…

The jurors are -finally- allowed to talk with each other. Reminds me of egrDau who wanted me to read her blog. I said I spent the last 10 years training myself not to look at your diary and papers, hard to change now.

I hope we will hear from CHS re Jeralyn when she gets back.

lol, as I was typing this she was putting up the next post.

Notta Flatlander @ 111: “The question was what arrows to best shoot Wilson with.”

I think was less “what arrows”, and more “how much of this shit can we fling, how much of this shit will stick”.

Congrats Jane and FDL! Thank you.

OT, but FDL mentioned in the Post this am on a story about Tauscher and how mean we are to her…

She was once the only California Democrat to oppose Pelosi’s campaign for leadership, but she now marvels that the speaker’s performance has been “absolutely perfect — and she looks so beautiful doing it!” Tauscher’s Web site no longer features photos of her with Bush or Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), who lost a Democratic primary of his own last year but won reelection as an independent.

Those photos survived in Google’s cache; bloggers have dubbed one shot that appears to show Bush’s hand on Tauscher’s thigh “The Caress,” an allusion to “The Kiss” — video and photos showing Bush embracing Lieberman after the 2005 State of the Union address — which dogged the senator in his fight against insurgent Ned Lamont. Tauscher donated and has helped raise a total of $2 million for Democrats over the past decade, and since 2003 she has voted with her party more than 90 percent of the time. This year, she has marched in lock step with Pelosi. But to Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars, she’s Lieberman in a pantsuit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01575.html

comments are being taken…there’s an awful lot wrong with the article, imho. calling Ned Lamont an ‘insurgent’ is just one!

Rich at 108

…Wells had an emotional breakdown and kept his head in his hands, without looking up, for Fitz’s entire summation. This goes way beyond Wells being passionate in defense of his client. Wells was disengaged and did not participate apparently even in a sidebar conference. This display, along with his 20 minute SELF-defense at the beginning of the defense summation shows to me that he was clearly concerned that he, Wells, has failed in his lawyering, rather than being driven to tears out of genuine love for his client. I suspect that the jurors will also view his theatrics that way…

Ah-h-h. Now THAT I would buy as plausible.

Almost tee’d up the [pity-party-for-self] spitball earlier, but decided agnst it in deference to Wells’ presumed professionalism. Eeewww!!! Don’t these guys all fit into a neat little scummy pattern, though?!

Whoosh! Someone please open a window! oh, & while yer up, ya might wanna send the veep on a junket to the other side of the world… just sayin’…

Grab the paper bags & breathe, folks. This might take awhile. & we’ve gotta trudge thru MSMadnauseums all week while the jury’s doin’ the people’s business.

Attaturk @
155

Be harsh on people that have no doubt and had no doubt about what the jury would have done since before the trial started.

The dynamics of the jury room are what you expect when 12 different people get there. I’ve won some trials and lost some trials and often I do so for reasons I could not have really predicted as the trial went along. I’m right more than I’m wrong but I’m wrong a good deal of the time…and I’ve been there for the whole trial.

It sounds like this is a very strong, well presented case by the Prosecution, but nobody knows.

Well said. I know who I’m rooting for, and I’ll be surprised if Libby walks. But yes, oh yes, I have been surprised before. That’s why I want someone to just tell me when the jury comes back. Yeah, I trust them, mostly, but I will worry.

Jep@95
I always thought that the fact that they tried to smear Joe Wilson with the contention that his trip didn’t matter, wasn’t real, because his “wife” sent him revealed a certain old fashioned worldview. I thought that it particularly pointed to a much older brain for it’s genesis, one that doesn’t get that in todays’ world women are valued and respected for the work they do, and that the men married to them wouldn’t necessarily feel emasculated by being seen to do something their wife asked them to do. I think Cheney must have been surprised that everyone focused on the fact that “the wifes” important work was focused on, and the damage that had been done to her and to the Nat’l Security, rather than the damage to his critics’ masculinity.

Jeralyn isn’t saying that she thinks that there will be a not guilty verdict as I read her- she is just looking at the case from a juror’s point of view and exploring the conflicts that may be in their minds.

The teary eyed close seemed like cheap theatrics from this chair- but she thinks a juror or two might buy it. From my jury experience- she is likely correct- then the other jurors will have to pull the tender hearts back.

When Libby was still in the White House, in his last days, what did he say when he bumped into Bush in the hallway?

“PARDON ME!”

“FOREIGN POLICY DEPENDS ON THE SANCTITY OF ITS INFORMATION FOR THIS REASON QUESTIONING THE SELECTIVE USE
OF INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY THE WARIN IRAQ IS NEITHER IDLE SNIPING NOR REVISIONIST HISTORY AS MR BUSH HAS
SUGGESTED THE ACT OF WAR IS THE LAST OPTION OF DEMOCRACY TAKEN WHEN THERE IS GRAVE THREAT TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY MORE THAN 200 AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ ALREADY WE HAVE DUTY
TO ENSURE THAT THEIR SACRIFICE CAME FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.”

Morphing a War on Terror into a War for Oil in Iraq on “fabrications” constitutes “TREASON”

Hobodeluxe @
117

Libby Aquitted!!

Just thought I’d be the first. Since I know there’s no way they didn’t get their slimy tentacles around at least one juror.

If one juror holds out, that means a hung jury (not an acquittal).

I think there will be a guilty verdict, but a retrial wouldn’t be the worst outcome, because it will keep the pressure on the Cheney administration.

rwcole @ 170

Jeralyn isn’t saying that she thinks that there will be a not guilty verdict as I read her- she is just looking at the case from a juror’s point of view and exploring the conflicts that may be in their minds.

The teary eyed close seemed like cheap theatrics from this chair- but she thinks a juror or two might buy it. From my jury experience- she is likely correct- then the other jurors will have to pull the tender hearts back.

I think any benefit Wells could have had was totally neutralized by Fitz. He pointed out that there was a clear victim in this case, but it wasn’t Scooter. It was Valerie Plame. Scooter could have gotten her killed. That reality check trumped Wells’ crocodile tears, in my mind.

Kudos to all involved at FDL, going all the way back to the Wilson op-ed.

Your work is truly a milestone in American jurisprudence.

FWIW, I predict the jury will take at least one day per charge in their deliberations, just to show they took their task seriously.

I also predict Scooter will be found guilty on at least one count.

wigwam @ 157 – Jeralyn is a defense lawyer.
In spite of her best efforts to identify herself with Wilsons and us in this case, she automatically goes into defense mode. That’s in her DNA. We need to discount that aspect, when we read her otherwise-excellent analysis.

Marcy, my Mom was curious if Fitz had ashe son his forehead, the face of uncorruptable law and justice in our time?

Thank you, Egregious. Impressive numbers for a pajama-clad bunch of hippies swimming against the MSM current. A “ding” to all.

Frank

There are two kinds of jurors- those who push out all emotion and insist on deciding “logically” and those who decide based on emotion and then find a way to find a path of reason that leads to their conclusion.

The “T” people often find an issue clearly decided- and then some “F” people show up and swing the thing the other way.

If some in the jury got swept up in the emotion- it will take an equal and opposite emotion to bring em back.

I think we will look back and say the
“Liveblogging Libby” was the birthdate of the
new Fourth Estate….
Many thanks

Wells’ behavior during the final FitzBlitz (head in hands, not looking up, not objecting to the “outing of NOC” line) sounds dangerously like incompetence. Does his behavior set up the possiblity of appeal on the grounds of incompetent defense (essentially legal malpractice)? Is it possible that Libby and the defense team are simply setting up the possibility of a new trial (after using this one to learn the nature of the government’s case)? If successful, does this not turn Wells (apparent) incompetence into potential genius? His behavior does not “smell right” to me.

Considering her covert status, and that Cheney’s “junket” notes were apparently the first material piece in the outing puzzle, what are the ramafications of a vice-president instructing his operatives to commit this act?

Is it simply “high crimes and misdemeanors” or is it outright treason, in that outing Plame gave aid to the enemy?

ANy leagal types know where this puts Cheney’s crimes? Is he just a crook, or is he also a traitor?

And for those who might compare this to Nixon’s debacle, and simply put it all into the “cover-up” category (sand in the eyes) lets not disregard a very important fact: Watergate didn’t threaten any CIA agents’ lives.

If Cheney gets charged, it shouldn’t just be for the cover-up, he should take full responsibility for intentionally and willfully endangering the lives of American citizens.

I wonder how much profit his no-bid book-cooking buddies have pocketed? Now there’s a figure we will never know.

Was Wells trying to distract the jury from Fitz’s close by giving them something else to look at? That would be a fair guess.

Rich @ 6

Wells’ behavior yesterday afternoon is extremely significant. From the description of it that Jane, Christy and Marcy provided in the fabulous PoliticsTV piece last night, Wells acted like a lawyer who had already lost his case: he sat, head in hands, not looking up, during Fitz’ entire summation (even during sidebar conferences). And equally bad, he and Jeffries displayed conflict within the defense team. Not the way a team acts when they think they are winning.

These non-verbal cues likely gave at least some members of the jury the impression that things were not going Libby’s way, and that the defense thought that the prosecution was making the more compelling case.

And they certainly gave me the impression that Wells himself believes that he already lost case.

What was the reaction of the jurors when Wells sobbed?

jayt @ 107

egregious @ 127

…superior coverage of the trial.
…seriousness and our credibility. ymmv

Puleeze listen to egregious’ wisdom, folks!
The Lake is bigger than any pool.
Keep the Lake clean and sparkling clear.

The defense wanted to paint Libby as an ordinary guy- who might be your neighbor- or YOU for that matter- who has a wife and kids and is trying to do the best job he can in a demanding situation. If he made a couple of mistakes in what he told the grand jury and the FBI–well what the hell- what harm did it do? The jury is invited to think “he is no criminal- he’s an innocent man- and this is all a technicality- let him go”.

Interested Observer @ 182

Wells’ behavior during the final FitzBlitz (head in hands, not looking up, not objecting to the “outing of NOC” line) sounds dangerously like incompetence. Does his behavior set up the possiblity of appeal on the grounds of incompetent defense (essentially legal malpractice)? Is it possible that Libby and the defense team are simply setting up the possibility of a new trial (after using this one to learn the nature of the government’s case)? If successful, does this not turn Wells (apparent) incompetence into potential genius? His behavior does not “smell right” to me.

Ineffective assistance of counsel appeals are very very hard to win. There is of course the infamous case of the defense lawyer who slept through his client’s trial — ineffective assistance argument rejected. You could never win on that argument with the kind of legal team Libby had here.

I think Wells was either trying to recover his emotions, or simply couldn’t bear the contrast between his own closing and Fitz’s.

Neil (178) — you know, if Fitz had to do any prep this morning before trial, I don’t think he would have had time to make it to Mass, do you? Tell your mom he’s probably going to an afternoon service.

rwcole @ 182

The defense wanted to paint Libby as an ordinary guy- who might be your neighbor- or YOU for that matter- who has a wife and kids and is trying to do the best job he can in a demanding situation. If he made a couple of mistakes in what he told the grand jury and the FBI–well what the hell- what harm did it do? The jury is invited to think “he is no criminal- he’s an innocent man- and this is all a technicality- let him go”.

Yeah, normal kids from normal families go on AF2 rides for their 10th birthday…

The more I think about Wells defense, the more I feel certain that Libby was micro-managing and instructing him every step of the way. Who was in turn taking direction from Comstock…

He could have just used the ashes in his cigarette like Comstock may have.

Wells may be having a mid-life crisis, and his real-world insecurities collided with his courtroom icon before our very eyes.

But its more likely he just screwed up his “tears for Scooter” defense, and knew it when he went back to the defense table.

rwcole @ 184

Was Wells trying to distract the jury from Fitz’s close by giving them something else to look at? That would be a fair guess.

fwiw from someone who admittedly was not on the scene, nevertheless….

YES! dammit!

please see my #168 & take fwiw from a former juror, multiple times, w/ MS in behavior.
Yes. I trained horses too. Wanna make somethin’ of it? Dressage. Why u askin?!
*grabs paper bag, puff puff, slowly now…*

dang. where’s lhp with that “bright shiny thing” stuff?

sorry rwc. not mad at you. just frustrated.

litigatormom @ 188

Interested Observer @ 182

Wells’ behavior during the final FitzBlitz (head in hands, not looking up, not objecting to the “outing of NOC” line) sounds dangerously like incompetence. Does his behavior set up the possiblity of appeal on the grounds of incompetent defense (essentially legal malpractice)? Is it possible that Libby and the defense team are simply setting up the possibility of a new trial (after using this one to learn the nature of the government’s case)? If successful, does this not turn Wells (apparent) incompetence into potential genius? His behavior does not “smell right” to me.

Ineffective assistance of counsel appeals are very very hard to win. There is of course the infamous case of the defense lawyer who slept through his client’s trial — ineffective assistance argument rejected. You could never win on that argument with the kind of legal team Libby had here.

I think Wells was either trying to recover his emotions, or simply couldn’t bear the contrast between his own closing and Fitz’s.

Okay I give up. Everyone who feels sorry for Wells, raise both hands. You’ve just been robbed. Now see how easy that was?

“If Cheney gets charged, it shouldn’t just be for the cover-up, he should take full responsibility for intentionally and willfully endangering the lives of American citizens.”

WHAT IS THE LATEST G.I. BODY COUNT IRAQ?

DECOMPOSE IN HELL CHENEY!

ccmask @ 191

He could have just used the ashes in his cigarette like Comstock may have.

;->

litigatormom @ 188

Interested Observer @ 182

Wells’ behavior during the final FitzBlitz (head in hands, not looking up, not objecting to the “outing of NOC” line) sounds dangerously like incompetence. Does his behavior set up the possiblity of appeal on the grounds of incompetent defense (essentially legal malpractice)? Is it possible that Libby and the defense team are simply setting up the possibility of a new trial (after using this one to learn the nature of the government’s case)? If successful, does this not turn Wells (apparent) incompetence into potential genius? His behavior does not “smell right” to me.

Ineffective assistance of counsel appeals are very very hard to win. There is of course the infamous case of the defense lawyer who slept through his client’s trial — ineffective assistance argument rejected. You could never win on that argument with the kind of legal team Libby had here.

I think Wells was either trying to recover his emotions, or simply couldn’t bear the contrast between his own closing and Fitz’s.

Jane Hamsher @
105

Well that’s it. What an amazing trial. It was a privilege to be able to be here for it, an experience I’ll never forget, wonderfully inspirational. Thanks to everyone who helped make it possible. It was really a dream come true.

Jane, Christy, Marcy, and all FDL commentators and commentors, thank you for the window into this very important case. I have been riveted from the Joe Wilson op-ed right through this fantastic coverage of the trial which we would only have known through the 3-5 minute segments on the national news and summaries by the AP.

I have been especially thankful for the glimpse of the craft of Fitzgerald, the prosecutor’s special prosecutor. How fortunate for us he was chosen for this task. It has been a pleasure to see a man of integrity at the top of his game work a case of a lifetime.

The extradition treaty with Paraguay expressly excludes political crimes or motives:

As is customary in extradition treaties, Article IV incorporates a
political offense exception to the obligation to extradite. Article
IV(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted for a po-
litical offense. The article expressly excludes from the reach of the
political offense exception several categories of offenses:
(a) a murder or other willful crime against the physical in-
tegrity of the Head of State of one of the Parties, or of a mem-
ber of the Head of State’s family;
(b) an offense for which both Parties are obliged pursuant to
a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person
sought or submit the case to their competent authorities for de-
cision as to prosecution; and
(c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit the offenses described
above, or participation in the commission of such offenses.
Article IV(2) provides that extradition shall not be granted if the
competent authority of the Requested State determines that the re-
quest was politically motivated.

Hence, the Bush family land grab.

Well, Calvin Burdine did receive a new trial from a divided Fifth Circuit, which held that he was entitled to have his lawyer awake during his death penalty trial. That said, having tried 60 case to a jury, shedding tears is a real risky proposition. And in 25 years, I have never ever given the jury a hang dog despondent appearance, no matter what. The last thing a lawyer want to do is show defeatism. And I have seen lawyers bring a jury to tears in catastropic injury cases, only to have them bring back a take nothing verdict. Of course, those in the court room who could see the jury’s reaction to Wells’ sobbing episodo can better judge their reactions.

I think Wells was either trying to recover his emotions, or simply couldn’t bear the contrast between his own closing and Fitz’s.

*snorkhlehgh*

’scuse. hey, I gotta bridge u might be interested in. walk north a ways. turn left. then right. no, it’s o.k. that’s just fog. just keep walkin’. i’m sure it’s there…

Crazy Horse @ 199

The extradition treaty with Paraguay expressly excludes political crimes or motives:

As is customary in extradition treaties, Article IV incorporates a
political offense exception to the obligation to extradite. Article
IV(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted for a po-
litical offense. The article expressly excludes from the reach of the
political offense exception several categories of offenses:
(a) a murder or other willful crime against the physical in-
tegrity of the Head of State of one of the Parties, or of a mem-
ber of the Head of State’s family;
(b) an offense for which both Parties are obliged pursuant to
a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person
sought or submit the case to their competent authorities for de-
cision as to prosecution; and
(c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit the offenses described
above, or participation in the commission of such offenses.
Article IV(2) provides that extradition shall not be granted if the
competent authority of the Requested State determines that the re-
quest was politically motivated.

Hence, the Bush family land grab.

Will CHENEY move to Paraguay? The JDL is still active hunting Nazi War Criminals there!

OK, gotta go get some work done, ‘coz you never know when the next indictment is coming down the road and I’ll be glood to my toobz again. But cannot, cannot say thanks enough. Roll the credits!

The Ladies of the Lake: Jane, who started it all, Christy. Thank you.

The Plame House Team Allstars — Jane and Christy, emptywheel the magnificent, Swopa, Jeralyn, eRiposte, looseheadprop, Pachahutec plus egregious, Scarecrow, Peterr, and everybody who kept the ball moving. This is a team with incredible depth, Coach Jane. Thank you all.

The mods — they do what they do so well that we don’t even know they are doing it, whatever it is. Kudos. Thank you.

The FDL commentors — depth, knowledge, smarts, heart, *and* good manners! Wonderful people to hang with. We keep this up and we won’t hang separately. Thank you.

Team Fitz: Special Council Patrick Fitzgerald, Deputy Special Counsels Debra Bonamici, Kathleen Kedian and Peter Zeidenberg, Intelligence Research Analyst Harry Brady, Paralegal specialists Gerardo Francisco and Katie Hance, and Bonnie Hansen and Jared Richards. Thank you for your service to your country.

Unknown patriots in the CIA, the DOJ, the FBI and all the government agencies that are suffering under the current administration, as are all of America and the world. Thank you for serving your country under these difficult circumstances, we are in your debt. It is your legacy that history will remember.

Jane, Christy, Marcy

You’re quite simply the absolute best!

THANK YOU!

Wondering if the Baker Botts guy lurking about had anything to do with the Wells’ spells.

Adie @ 192

rwcole @ 184

Was Wells trying to distract the jury from Fitz’s close by giving them something else to look at? That would be a fair guess.

fwiw from someone who admittedly was not on the scene, nevertheless….

YES! dammit!

please see my #168 & take fwiw from a former juror, multiple times, w/ MS in behavior.
Yes. I trained horses too. Wanna make somethin’ of it? Dressage. Why u askin?!
*grabs paper bag, puff puff, slowly now…*

dang. where’s lhp with that “bright shiny thing” stuff?

sorry rwc. not mad at you. just frustrated.

You train horses? Then is it true that you can’t make ‘em drink? ;}

James Joyce at 202 – Do you really think the JDL would ever hunt Darth Cheney?

BobbyG @
14

perris @ 13

me waits for plea deal once the charge is rendered

Ain’t gonna happen. “Pardon ME?”
_

maybe I am naive — but there are a couple of reasons Bush might not pardon Libby

1) maybe rove is ready to throw Cheney under the bus, and scapegoat OVP for everything that as gone wrong w Bush admin.

2) Bush strikes me as vindictive and unpredictable — his loyality is to Rove not Libby. I expect Babs Bush is advising — too bad, Libby got caught, cut him loose.

Hotflash 205

Had a sweet lil’ Arab who thot she was a pocket pet. Once won a western pleasure class dressed as an Indian (sorry real-guys; I was young & stoopid), riding bareback with rein = simple loop around her lower jaw & strap just on one side of her neck. Yes, she could and would do dressage “dressed” like that, & the judge of that class was utterly perplexed – just laughed helplessly as he handed her the ribbon. I forget, but she probably held it in her teeth, since there wasn’t enuf of a bridle to pin it to.

Ohhh do I wish I could still do that stuff, but time passes…
… more than you wanted to know… ;->

GE at 207

1) maybe rove is ready to throw Cheney under the bus, and scapegoat OVP for everything that as gone wrong w Bush admin.

2) Bush strikes me as vindictive and unpredictable — his loyality is to Rove not Libby. I expect Babs Bush is advising — too bad, Libby got caught, cut him loose.

fwiw, that makes 2 of us getting a strong whiff of same stuff in the air… just can’t get a sense of where it would lead… (e.g., would libby flip finally? if what you surmise is true, what would he have to lose?!) time will tell…

lotta fine minds around here able to delve a lot more deeply into these possibilities than I ever could.
Note to Self: Stay tuned in to the Lake. ;->

Jeralyn’s wrong about the “Memory Expert.” I am SO glad the judge kept that nonsense out of the trial.

It shouldn’t be allowed in ANY trial. Pure mumbo jumbo.

In theory, criminal trials operate on the presumption of innocence. A man walks into a courtroom cloaked in that presumption, and it’s up to the prosecution to rip it away. If they can’t do that, he walks out free.

That’s the theory. At the end of the day, however, jury trials are all about storytelling. Two narratives of events are presented, and the jury decides which is more plausible. Juries are composed of people, and people don’t like uncertainty. The defense can spend all day poking holes in the prosecution’s narrative, but if they can’t sketch some alternate version of events, it’s unlikely to get them very far.

That’s what makes the defense summation so interesting. They hammered away on the theme of the presumption of innocence. They went into detail showcasing the problems with witnesses, including Russert, Miller, and Fleischer. But what they didn’t do was present a compelling alternate narrative. Rather, they presented several.

(1) The first presumes that the maximum number of people are lying. Libby has a couple of conversations early on about Plame’s identity, and promptly forgets them. His later conversations simply didn’t happen the way the prosecution alleges. Fleischer lied to collect immunity. Judy has no actual memory, just some cryptic notes. Then Scooter talks to Russert, and learns about Plame anew. Russert is lying about (or falsely reconstructing) his account either because his memory is spotty or because he has it in for Scooter.

(2) Our second theory is more generous to the prosecution witnesses. Perhaps, Wells suggests, many of them are telling the truth, or at least the truth as they remember it. But memory is fallible. Are any of their individual accounts so compelling that we can be sure that events unfolded as they describe, and not as Libby remembers? In this theory, the only witness who needs to be thoroughly discredited is Russert.

(3) Our third theory (and really, it’s the most breathtakingly audacious) is that every prosecution witness is telling the truth – even Russert! Wells want us to believe that Scooter may have misremembered each individual conversation. The prosecution, he notes, has no direct evidence of deliberate lying – no conversation in which Libby announces his intention to obstruct justice into a recording device, and no memorandum detailing his strategy of prevarication. Wells would like the jury to disregard the mountain of indirect and circumstantial evidence, arguing that none of it proves that this was more than a string of innocent errors.

And that’s why the jury will convict (on most, if not all, of the charges). In their effort to force the jury to confront the presumption of innocence, Wells and Jeffress have undermined their own account of the case. When they conceded, even rhetorically, the possibility that every prosecution witness testified accurately and truthfully, they undid two weeks of careful attacks against the credibility of those witnesses. I think we have to regard it as a Hail Mary – that the defense team concluded that they had no alternate theory of the case that the jury might buy, and that its last, best bet was convincing at least one juror that the situation is to muddled to overcome the presumption of innocence. But it won’t work – after spending two weeks on a case, these jurors are going to have their theories of what actually happened. “I just can’t conclusively tell” isn’t likely to wash. And Scooter is going to go to jail.

Don’t you think that if Fitzgerald had wanted Cheney, he would have done so by now? He had all this Cheney evidence back when he indicted Libby. It’s not going to happen.

wigwam @
157

*xyz @
49

I have to say that I am disappointed with this type of analysis from Jeralyn:

“Ted Wells’ closing was unfocused and meandering. But, he was emotional. The jury had to sense, as I did, that he believed with his whole heart in his argument. I think that will go a long way with the jury. William Jeffress more than adequately established the memory problems of all the witnesses in the case. The bottom line is, who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”

1. Of course the defense attorney appears to believe in his own argument. That’s why they pay him the big bucks. And others have contradicted Jeralyn somewhat, pointing out that the crying seemed fake and Wells’ generally came across as over-the-top. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say. Also, I’ve heard that Fitzgerald was pretty emotional too – doesn’t that count for anything? It would, if this was an acting contest, which it is not.

2. “who’s to say Libby’s faulty recollections were a lie while the faulty recollections of the other witnesses were innocent mistakes?”
Well, the jury is to say. That’s their job. They can look at motive. And they can look at the odds. It is Libby’s word against over a half-dozen witnesses.

Jeralyn is simply saying that a not-unreasonable case can be made for faulty memory in here, and it’s likely that one out of 12 jurors will see things that way. On the other hand, people tend to go with their feelings and to use logic to justify what they feel rather than vice versa. It’s hard to have much sympathy for the slimy conspiracy in which the defendant was involved (but is not now charged), his lawyer theatrics not withstanding.

That said, I would not bet against Jeralyn in this case.

Remember that the memory defense has to rely on all EIGHT of the prosecution witnesses being wrong in their recollections of events. If any single one is given credit with their memories for any single count then it falls apart.

It would have helped Libby to bring forward one of those individuals he “told” that “all the reporters knew” in the days after the Russert conversation to demoinstrate that he, in fact, attributed that to Russert.

Remember that Libby asserted to the GJ that he had told Rove and Cheney about Russert – neither were brought forward to establish this. But he claims not only to recall the Russert converstaion but also these statements to others that Russert told him.

pny @ 213

Don’t you think that if Fitzgerald had wanted Cheney, he would have done so by now? He had all this Cheney evidence back when he indicted Libby. It’s not going to happen.

A reasonable person might think that by stripping Cheney of his best alibi (Libby) Fitz has actually opened Chrnry to prosecution. Liars aren’t considered good witnesses.

Rich at 108:

Please remember that Jeralyn left the courthouse during the middle of Fitz’s summation, to catch an airplane. Perhaps she did not see that Wells had an emotional breakdown and kept his head in his hands, without looking up, for Fitz’s entire summation. This goes way beyond Wells being passionate in defense of his client. Wells was disengaged and did not participate apparently even in a sidebar conference. This display, along with his 20 minute SELF-defense at the beginning of the defense summation shows to me that he was clearly concerned that he, Wells, has failed in his lawyering, rather than being driven to tears out of genuine love for his client. I suspect that the jurors will also view his theatrics that way.

I left at 4:30. I heard both Wells and the first half hour of Fitz. I thought Fitz talked too fast — faster than the jury could listen. I thought Wells was genuine in his outrage and his frustration and in his tear. But then, I’m a criminal defense lawyer and I know how personally we take trials and how we bond with our clients.

We’re a whole different breed than prosecutors and even most ex-prosectutors who later become defense lawyers.

I agree Wells was off his game, I said his argument was unfocused and scattered. I criticized him for reading off his powerpoint slides.

But I’d bet the emotion in it reached at least one juror. Whether it’s enough to overcome the Government’s logic is something we’ll all find out soon.

pny @
213

Don’t you think that if Fitzgerald had wanted Cheney, he would have done so by now? He had all this Cheney evidence back when he indicted Libby. It’s not going to happen.

As has been brought up in discussions before: Libby provides Cheney’s best shield. If he can first be convicted of being a liar and obstructor of justice he cannot provide Cheney that shield. Taking Libby out is (quite likely) a necessary step in getting to the real person responsible. I have the feeling (after this case is put to bed) that Fitz’s next step will be to bring Cheney back to a GJ for under-oath testimony.

I don’t think, from the way he used his closing, that he is satisfied that justice has been done at one person being convicted for obstruction. The obstruction must be removed for justice to proceed.

What ever happened with that “sealed Vs sealed”
matter that was mentioned as an aside to the
live blogging of the trial?

conniptionfit @
170

Jep@95
I always thought that the fact that they tried to smear Joe Wilson with the contention that his trip didn’t matter, wasn’t real, because his “wife” sent him revealed a certain old fashioned worldview. I thought that it particularly pointed to a much older brain for it’s genesis, one that doesn’t get that in todays’ world women are valued and respected for the work they do, and that the men married to them wouldn’t necessarily feel emasculated by being seen to do something their wife asked them to do. I think Cheney must have been surprised that everyone focused on the fact that “the wifes” important work was focused on, and the damage that had been done to her and to the Nat’l Security, rather than the damage to his critics’ masculinity.

Interesting. Now we’re in Maureen Dowd territory, but I’m fine with that. Wonder how hard it frosts him to have a black woman as Sec . of State? Deep freeze I’m guessing.

Pat @
218

What ever happened with that “sealed Vs sealed”
matter that was mentioned as an aside to the
live blogging of the trial?

It’s still sealed. I check all the time.