1) Tha accidental hero: Russert quite unexpectedly spilled the beans, Fitz says that because he was reached “At home” and implies that he was off guard. The truth, I think was that Tim thought that he would be CLEARING Scooter not indicting him. He thought that the inquiry was about who leaked Plame’s ID, and of course he knew that Libby had not leaked to him, so Tim, I deduce, was trying to help out the FBI investigator and offered up that he had not been the recipient of a leak so that the FBI wouldn’t have to waste time and resources subpoenaing him.

Obstruction by Pardon: The pardon would be a legal act, but there is no reason that a legal act to silence a witness can not be construed as part of a conspiracy. So even if the President pardons Libby it could actually get worse for the President and the Vice President. Also, once pardoned, Libby would not be entitled to his 5th Amendment right to silence and he could be MADE to testify, that could work out poorly for the Administration.

Rayne@14
If you figure out how to mount your laptop on the treadmill please let me know. I’ve been trying to figure out how to do it for weeks. The biggest problem of course, how not to shake its poor innards. I thought maybe mount it to the wall on some kind of moveable arm.

I hate laptops so I use an external keyboard, mouse, and screen. How to set up a mouse in this rig is what’s getting me. How am I going to move it around while walking? It’s a chew-gum/pat-my-head thing.

S.O.S. in MA @
79

*ilbo @ 72

… Genna Davis in supporting roles.

Yabbut what’s supporting Geena Davis? :)

She’s 6 feet tall. You better hit the gym.

*raises hand and volunteers*

egregious — heh. I’m trying to figure out how to mount my laptop on my treadmill even now.

you should patent that!

“The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90’s which was called, “A Clean Break – A New Strategy for the Realm.” And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem.”

19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicd…..son-32.mp3

“On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there’s a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon’s life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we’ve had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it’s a terribly flawed strategy.”

13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicd…..-qa-32.mp3

chatoman @ 142

I have tried over 100 criminal jury trials as a prosecutor and defense attorney. This case was a fairly bare bones case…no expert testimony, no scientific testimony. But proof wise, it was spoken testimony and a lot of jurors seem to forget testimony, disagree what was said, and will sometimes request testimony read back from the Court reporter. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see that happen today sometime.

Thanks – you articulated a very good point. With so much of the evidence being hours of testimony, I would expect that the jury would need to look at the exact words said at key moments of the trial, particularly if they’re hung up on issues. To me, that indicates the deliberations could take longer than in a case where an abundance of clear physical evidence is presented (or conversely, a lack of physical evidence that should be present).

When the jury asks for testimony to be read back, will we learn what specifically they ask to be read back at the time? That might give us a glimpse at what they’re examining.

The note should be read to the Defendant in open Court and the Judge will inform the
Defendant of his response. I do not know if the Judge in this case will respond to notes in his Court Room or in Chambers. There must be record made of questions, notes etc. in front of a court reporter and in the precense of Defendant.

And yes these types of notes will really indicate what the jury is thinking….

In Jeffress’ portion of the closing arguments, he went on and on about how unreliable journalists are, and how you can’t believe a single thing any of them publish. Then he went on to (rather dramatically) tell the jury that they should acquit Scooter because THEY aren’t journalists!

I think Jeffress forgot something rather important.

One of the members of the jury IS a journalist, and in fact, used to work for a well-known paper, reporting to Bob Woodward.

Do you think he’ll appreciate having one of the attorneys (essentially) call him an unreliable pathalogical liar?

Oops.

The detailed coverage of the trial here has been compelling, dramatic, and historic. It’s something that we absolutely would never have seen relying on the traditional media. I don’t comment as frequently or as insightfully as many others in this community, but it’s truly an honor to be able to contribute. Thanks, Jane and Christy in particular.

Arnie @ 17

Nothing since the live television coverage of the Watergate hearings has been equaled by the Liveblogging done here for illuminating the malfeasance of power gone mad. Truly Magnificently and Historically done by all.

I was in my playpen during Watergate

I was in my senior year of high school and my freshman year of college. The summer of the Watergate hearings, my parents and I sat and watched the PBS replay every single night, eating our dinner and discussing the testimony. It’s what made me want to go to law school.

My daughter, the budding political junkie, has been following the trial (mostly through watching Tweety and KO), but most of her friends (16/17 year olds) are oblivious.