
Note from the jury:
We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:
Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)
Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?
Second note from jury:
After further discussion, we are clear on what we need to do. No further clarification needed. Thank you. We apologize.
After the second note came back, the Libby team was clustered around some piece of paper (I assume the note) chuckling. They showed it to Fitz, and nobody seemed to alarmed one way or the other.
emptywheel here.
Here's my take on this. First, if Libby is acquitted of some,but not all, of the charges, it'll be this charge he is acquitted on first. It's a real he said he said charge, and Jeffress really did score some points against Matt Cooper's credibility.
Now, on all of these charges, it is often difficult to keep two things straight. There's the issue of whether Libby told a lie to journalists in July 2003. And whether he lied to the FBI about what he told to journalists in 2003. This charge is particularly confusing in that regard, because Libby's statement was so short and it contains such an obvious lie. So I suspect the entire jury probably agrees that, if Libby said he had no idea whether Plame worked for the CIA, he lied. But that's not the charge. The question, of course, is whether he lied when he said that to the FBI.
But the fact that they asked this question about THIS charge means they haven't had the same confusion with other charges. It means they haven't had the confusion in determining whether Libby lied to Russert when he allegedly said he was surprised when he learned about Plame.



258 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Fitz!
Fitz!
Doesn’t this look good for the prosecution?
Madness! Madness! Madness!
Give back the truth!
Now, Now, Now!! I want my verdict NOW!!!
Jane!
This is very nerve-wracking.
You called it, Jane.
Way to go.
Hope they are more clear-thinking as a collective bunch than the note suggests. What happened to all the Ph.Ds on the jury? I know one is gone but still…
That’s a good question.
Sounds like at least one juror is not sure whether they are to take it as stipulated that Libby did say that to the FBI on either October 14 or Nov. 26. I didn’t hear the trial testimony, obviously, but it does seem odd that the prosecution wasn’t sure on which date this statement was made. That makes it seem like a pretty dodgy charge to me.
scotter is going down faster than jeff gannon / gukert in turd blossom’s office . . .
Why is it every time Fitzgerald says “hi” I have food in my mouth?
Scout Finch @ 3
Well, here’s what we been speculatin’ at the EPU’d end of the last thread:
Woodhall Hollow @ 153
Blue Dido @ 6
Juries take as long as they take. It’s nerve-wracking for onlookers and the defendant, but it’s no picnic-in-the-park for the jurors, either.
BC
Hmm. I think they’re thinking too hard. The count says that X told the FBI a false statement. You don’t have to ask if the count is that he told it, or that the statement is false – it’s both, fer chrissake. If he hadn’t told it…
Anyway.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
So he won’t think you’re, like, totally crushed out?
It does look good for the prosecution. If the jurors are only now considering the Cooper false statement charge, they probably addressed the other charges first. Marcy is right; this count is the one most likely to fall.
OTOH, it doesn’t speak well of the jury that they’re still confused over whether Libby is charged with lying to Cooper and telling the truth about that to the FBI or telling the truth to the FBI about lying to Cooper.
Thank you so much for clarification. I’ve got my fingers crossed.
JGabriel @ 13
“falsely told” should clue them in that it is content not whether or not the statement was made
Jane Hamsher @
12
Fitz said hi? When, where, how many times?
From the last thread:
About Cheney’s pet “senior official“: Is it Rummy?
I am with Walton…what the heck was the jury asking?
For all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson, see:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
So the jury didn’t know if the charge is that Libby lied to the FBI about whether he made the statement to Cooper, or if the content of the statement was a lie? Are they over-thinking, much?
FWIW: CNN just had an update on this. Their reporter indicated that it seemed the question the jurors was asking appeared to be whether Count 3 says that Scooter lied in testimony about the content of his conversation with Cooper, OR that Scooter lied in saying no conversation ever existed between Cooper & Scooter that day.
Marcy called it yesterday, speculating it had to do with the Cooper charge.
karelroc @ 22
I read it as a bit of the jury getting tangled up in Libby’s lies. Are they supposed to convict him for lying to Cooper or for lying to the FBI about what he said to cooper.
As litigatormom pointed out, it is not against the law to lie per se, but it is against the law to lie to the FBI. Hopefully the jury has figured this out.
Jane Hamsher @
12
OMG, he is teh into you! Totlally !!!11!!!!
karelroc @ 22
For some reason, this sounds to me like one person might have been confused and no one was able to talk them out of their confusion, but then suddenly a light bulb went on. This has happened to me sometimes about stuff that everyone gets but me and then when I get it I have a doh moment. It usually does happen when I am being too literal or thinking too hard.
Jane, can you pass Fitz a note from me?
;-)
Thank God I’m unemployed right now, I would have had to quit my job to keep up with the fantastice work done here. FDL is the greatest. Thanks guys!
I don’t know if this is good for the prosecution or not. I am totally confused.
“This is good news for Bush”
This is pretty simple folks…
The question comes from the concept that Libby could have been lying to Cooper… protecting his source so to speak.
In other words, even if he had heard it from God himself… telling Cooper that he heard it from other reporters is not a crime. He can lie all day long to reporters.
The jury is likely weighing the feasiblity that Libby certainly could have told Cooper that he heard it from other reporters… whether or not it was actually true.
This would suggest that they are leaning towards aquittal on these charges…. but doesn’t really tell us anything about the rest.
I don’t know about you guys, but I think the instructions to the jury are poorly worded. Who writes this stuff? The Judge?
EPU’d below: Are all of Libby’s lawyers on the clock while sitting around during deliberations? Don’t think I’d want to pay for all 11. I’ve only got two hands to hold and I’m not letting them hold anything else no matter how much I’m paying.
superfly at 28 — No more caffeine for you.
These notes are usually sent to resolve an impass in deliberations. Typically part of the jury has taken one position, part has taken the other, and after a while they realize that part of their disagreement is due to differing interpretations of the instructions.
Often just the act of drafting the question triggers thought processes that help resolve the impass.
While we can’t divine the verdict from this question (sometimes the jury direction is very clear from such questions, other times not) it does seem that they are discussing the charges and evidence in fine detail. This is probably a good sign for the prosecution, but not necessarily.
Jane / Marcy, are you gonna make it w/ notebooks today, or do you need an intervention. Lunchhour is here and I need to make a decision.
Jane an’ Fitzie, sittin’ inna tree…
I think the jury was asking whether Libby was wondering if “I don’t know if that was true” referred to “journalists were telling this to the administration” or “she worked for the CIA.”
If the former, he knew journalists weren’t telling the administration anything that didn’t originate with him, Rove, Armitage or the WHIG, and if the latter, he was told by Cheney she worked for the CIA, so he knew that, as well.
It doesn’t matter. Fitz established how many conversations were going on about Plame.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
Okay Jane, once again: leave the guns, take the canolli, but when in the courthouse, the rule is:
Leave the food, take the cell phone, the wallet, Marcy’s power cord and . . . uh . . . whatever else you forgot. ;)
tommy yum @ 16
That is kind alike when you are eating at a restaurant and your mouth is full and the wait person asks how is everything and you can’t say a thing. Never fails!
scarecrow @ 40
And get one of those chains to keep your glasses on. ;-)
I think that it’s unclear about the statement being made because there is an “or”. All of the other counts I assume are more specific about the timing of the false statements (is that true?). They first have to determine if the statement is made and then if it was false. The jury reversed that and thought it was obvious that Libby lied and then got stuck on whether they could automatically assume the statement was made as reported by the prosecution (because of the or). Libby is toast.
dude at 34 — They come directly out of case law precedents, pulled from prior cases which are applicable to the particular elements of the charge. The judge and counsel on both sides work on drafting, but they are required to follow precedent for them.
One quick note. If I’m not mistaken, the timing of the jury’s note this morning (9:45 a.m.) indicates that they got clarity on their own without any input from the judge or the parties.
I take it the answer to the question, which frankly seems pretty confused, is, roughly, the charge is that Libby made the statement to the FBI, the statement was false – in the sense that Libby did not in fact tell Cooper that reporters were telling the administration etc. (regardless of whether in fact the reporters were doing so etc) – and Libby knew it was false.
Actually it seems like an intelligent question to ask. They are asking, is the charge that the FBI ask,
“Did you ask the following of Matt Cooper…..” and Libby said no, he never had any such conversation with Matt Cooper.
Or
Did the FBI ask,
“Did you ask Matt Cooper the following…” and Libby said, no the question was like that, but it was actually something else.
My guess is that the jury believes that Libby is not guilty of the first but guilty of the second based on transcripts. But the charge is worded so it can be interpreted as either the first or the second.
By the way, the “We know what we have to do” comment suggests, from a pscyhological perspective, that they are close to finding Libby guilty. You only use that type of phrase usually if you are going to do something proactive. It is an active phrase to describe activity, no a passive on.
This is a very careful jury and we should be happy about that.
Jane Hamsher @
12
Now you know the Fitz Summoning Technique: Have a bag of Doritos nearby at all times!
conniptionfit @ 24
Perhaps, but law and jury duty are forums that require semantic analysis, some might say over-analysis.
I suspect this is better than under-thinking the charges.
I think the question made sense.
If the charge is I falsely told the FBI that “I told Marcy that Jane is fabulous.”
It would be easy to get hung up on whether Jane is fabulous (of course she is) when the question for the jury is whether I actually said that to Marcy.
Apparently, they figured that out.
Jane Hamsher @
12
*swooning*
Has anyone recently mentioned that the FDL Donation Button deserves to be clicked? See the upper right corner of the homepage. Paypal or credit cards can be used. I imagine FDLs costs for providing this groundbreaking coverage must be staggering. Give whatcha can to the good people at FDL!
‘…Page 74 of the jur instructions,…’
Thats a lot of pages – not a good look is it?
‘…”Count three of the indictmentn alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003,..’
Hope thats the Jury not sure of the date there and not the FBI! Again, not a real good look.
‘…that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)…’
What needs clarifying is that if you honestly believe the defendant conveyed information to Matt Cooper that the defendent then wilfully and knowingly and criminally lied to the FBI about then its up to you to decide on an up-or-down vote on that particular charge.
I think – IANAL
If they are going through the counts sequentially, this means we still have a bunch of deliberation time left.
If they are doing it in the order of “we agree he’s guilty on all of the counts except this last one (#3)” we may be closer. The fact that they are bringin up a question on the count that is closest to being an acquital count (after this many days of deliberation) would seem to be good news for the prosecution (as to guilty counts being returned on the others considered before).
The fact that they are not dressed up would seem to indicate that they don’t think they will be finished today.
watertiger @ 42
We may need to take up a collection of chains.
superfly @ 28
Damn. I don’t stand a chance against Fitz.
The “or” issue:
I think, and I could be wrong, this is to charge that Scooter lied to the FBI about the same Cooper conversation on both dates, but the jury can find him guilty of lying on either, both, or neither date.
Jane Hamsher @
12
He’s shy, and doesn’t want to feel like he’s forcing you into a long conversation.
Go ahead, and make it easy on the big guy. Offer him a chair, and share your food.
EPU’d from last thread:
Biodun @ 176
I agree this would seem to bode well for the prosecution. If they are thinking that hard about count #3 It would seem to imply at the very least they are considering whether Libby was misleading the FBI when talking about the Cooper conversation. It seeme to me if that is the case the Russert charge is a lock. But maybe I am being too hopeful.
Christy at 44
If it is pulled from precedent, how is it “pulled”—I mean, is this a case of cut-n-paste editing of case-decisions? Not a lawyer, so it’s an innocent but highly critical (of the process) question.
I would swoonJane Hamsher @ 12
.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 36
Just being silly (though it wouldn’t surprise me)
Thanks for to all for all your work.
Peterr @ 57
Oh, and make sure you do a quick swipe of the teeth before you talk. Nothing like having a piece of your snack on your front teeth while chatting.
DP @ 58
Well I guess
Vickywe can rule out the possibility of jury nullification,Gromit @ 36
Most likely. But some of them are also probably reading, researching, or taking phone calls with respect to other cases.
Welcome to the profitable world of double-billing.
> I don’t know if this is good for the
> prosecution or not. I am totally confused.
IIRC it was the Martha Stewart case where the jury sent out a question that, according to legal analysts, cut right to the heart of a question of legal scholarship that has remained unsolved for at least 100 years. Hours and hours of cable-news and talk blathering were generated by this note as a result.
Afterwords, when interviewed by a reporter one of the jurors said “we just didn’t understand the definition of this word”.
So I wouldn’t overanalyze…
Cranky
Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Four out of five isn’t bad. So then Libby would be facing what? Twenty five years? Plenty of time to write in prison, huh Scooter? Or maybe just tell the truth and get a book deal along with a year in Club Fed to write it. And maybe take these guys down and save the world. Today is hump day, let’s get this thing over with.
JGabriel@48- Yeah, they are overthinking. The charge is that Libby’s statement to to FBI was a lie, not that what he said to Cooper was untrue. It’s not illegal to lie to Cooper.
Poor Byron York, desperately maintaning his cluelessness when necessary for that filthy lucre:
Libby Update 3 [Byron York]
We know what the jury’s question was, and it’s as confusing as much of this case has been. This is the question:
‘OTOH, it doesn’t speak well of the jury that they’re still confused over whether Libby is charged with lying to Cooper and telling the truth about that to the FBI or telling the truth to the FBI about lying to Cooper’
If just one juror is confused, or even a couple, about the specifics of this charge, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. How many of us watching and listening in so closely fully understands these convoluted legaleze charges completely?
This sounds like someone on the jury simply wanted more clarification, and apparently wanted the judge’s version, not the foreman’s version, of what the charge was.
But before the judge could respond, the issue was cleared-up enough for that juror or jurors to proceed without the judge’s input…
Its easy for us to wonder at the jury’s confusion. We can quickly get the answers or learned opinions to these questions, here on this blog, from the many experts on board to guide us through the jargon.
But there are only 11 jurors, and they don’t have the benefit of access to this kind of expertise, so they must reach out of their jury room if they have questions.
If only they had Christy or Marcy handy to clear up these confusions… but that’s not how a jury works, huh?
Jane Hamsher @ 12
OMG did you feel 16 again for a moment and the cutest guy in school just said hi to you?
He likes you Jane! We can tell. He could have said hi to anyone in the room but he said hi to you!
Do prosecuters throw an iffy charge in sometimes to let the jury alleviate feeling of badness for convicting on other charges?
It STILL comes down to “It’s not illegal to lie to Cooper”!
dude at 61 — Prety much. The langauge of the instructionhas to closely track the language of the case law precedent in order to avoid raising an appealable issue. That’s a good thing if it is a well-worded opinion, but not so good if it’s poorly worded. FWIW, there are all sorts of books put together with model jury instructions, so most of them get refined over time, both by attorneys working the cases and by the judges who decide the issues in trial and also on appeal. It’s fluid, just not quickly so. Does that help?
superfly @
28
What guy wouldn’t? ;-)
George Soros buys Haliburton?
Um?
74 pages of instructions gets you only to the third count? No wonder this is taking so long.
FROM wONKETTE:
‘Politico ed John Harris cops to being the guy responsible for “slow bleed,” the term that’s killed John Murtha’s Iraq-ending plan dead. He’s so guilty about it he wrote a couple hundred words noting how quickly it spread and how now everyone’s using it look at all the Nexis hits and oh woe is he he surely wouldn’t do that again!’
is it just me or do most people think Politico.com is all but worthless?
Pat_AlexVA @
39
This is Marcy.
I think we’ll be fine with one computer until later in the day–I’m saving the remaining 3 hours on my battery in case we get some fun late in the day.
And once I turn it on I’ll tell you all about my chat with Fitz.
Jeff @
47
Alternately, the jurors may be able to convict on the charge on the basis that Libby was testifying to the FBI and GJ that he heard it from reporters.
That would take the onus off of Cooper’s credibility.
In other words, whatever Cooper remembers, it’s clear that Libby did not hear about Plame from the reporters ‘as if for the first time’.
The problem with Count Three is that includes the lie about hearing from reporters, but not the lie about hearing it ‘as if for the first time’.
That’s why I, and I think others, believe this to be the charge Libby’s most likely to beat.
OTOH, if they have already come to a conclusion on the other charges, then (IMHO) they are more likely to convict on Count Three, because taken in hand with the other charges Libby seems far more likely to be lying than not.
It means they haven’t had the confusion in determining whether Libby lied to Russert when he allegedly said he was surprised when he learned about Plame.
Minor modification here: Libby didn’t tell the FBI he told Russert anything in response to Russert’s purported statement about Plame. Libby told the FBI he experienced surprise, but not that he expressed it to Russert.
Phoenix Woman @ 49
And offer to share.
Jane Hamsher @
12
Um, dinner at 8? Dutch or Irish? I’d pitch in for that.
Wilbur @
47
I agree. Seems to me that if you were inclined towards non-guilty you would say “what we should do” whereas imposing a penalty is something most people do reluctantly because it is something that they “have to do.” That is certainly my own experience with juries.
A more simple explaination is that the wording simply means that “we have to” look at the charge (jury instructions) in a certain way.
Thanks for your take on this emptywheel! I’m a big fan. You’re bringing geek chic to this trial!
Bustednuckles @
26
I did? Cool! Since it worked so well this time, I think I’ll just speculate away that they’re going to come back with 4 guilty, one not guilty verdicts today.
At about 3:45, after my lunch meeting and at a time when I’ll have laptop power again.
Marcy– ooooh, you tease!
:O
I don’t understand. Libby is not charged with lying to Russert–even if he did, it would not be a crime. So why would the jury be trying to figure out if Libby lied to Russert?
Interested Observer @
54
Still Marcy here.
I agree entirely, that’s what I was trying to say above. If THIS is the only charge they havethis confusion with, it suggests there’s a good deal of clarity elsewhere.
Attaturk @ 70
“Who’s the dude in the media room with the Edwardian hairdo?”
Someone get Marcy a power cord fast! I can’t wait 3 hours to hear about her chat with Fitz. OMG!!!!
really… I need to study for an accounting test.. this is going to kill my GPA
Marcy – thanks for the clarification/insight upstairs. I think this sentence is missing a word, however:
I hope you all have a great lunchbreak, and we get a verdict this afternoon. Here’s hoping Jane can share a lunchtable with Fitz :)
Oh please wipe the smiles of the face of Wells and Scooter and friends. *eyes lifted upwards, praying*
Jane Hamsher @ 87
Okay, great, I can get some work done for the next 3 1/2 hours…
Yeah right, like I won’t be f5ing every 15 minutes for the rest of the day. ;-)
Shopgirlove @ 78
LOL – I thought you meant he bought a controlling interest!
Alternately, the jurors may be able to convict on the charge on the basis that Libby was testifying to the FBI and GJ that he heard it from reporters.
Not really, because by the time you get to July 12, Libby can claim he had heard from Novak via Rove even if he hadn’t heard from Russert, and that formed a basis for the purported statement to Cooper.
I suspect the jury finds it plausible that Libby could have heard from reporters, because numerous reporters indeed appear to have known by the time Libby spoke with Cooper. But I suspect they may be less clear on whether Libby did in fact make the statement to Cooper.
I also think they are just confused by all the nested statements involved: the alleged false statement is the one made to the FBI, but the statement is about a statement Libby made to Cooper on the basis of statements (according to Libby) reporters had made to him.
That may be one of the most awkward jury instructions I’ve seen. I am trying to imagine what I’d do if the good sister I had in grade school asked me to diagram it!
sentance line divide the verb is convict.noblejoanie @ 99
sentence line divide the verb is convict.
First, I want to say something about the Jury, the time they’re taking, and our patience. Unlike all us (who decided months ago that we know Libby is guilty of everything charged and more, with the entire Administration as unindicted co-conspirators, even Barney), they were picked to come at this completely fresh, with no foreknowledge. It is quite right that they should take their time in coming to a guilty verdict. ;)
More seriously, I am much encouraged by this question. As Marcy rightly points out, in the time the jury has had so far, they haven’t been confused by any of the charges as they were by this one, which they were smart enough to sort out by themselves (or we hope so, anyway).
As Marcy also says, this is the most “he said this, but he said that” charge, and if they aren’t already decided on Libby getting off on this one… then what of the other charges they’ve been deliberating on? Would it be easier for them to come to a conclusion on those, or harder? And which way?
I think we know.
It’s beginning to look a lot like the best Fitzmas ever.
i heart jane @ 11
Gannon advertised as a top. Just saying.
motherlowman @
21
The senior official is Cheney. The media uses the first person “I” when quoting the official.
“I came here….I am not heavy handed”……
-GSD
I thought we could use a giggle.
obsessed @ 96
upperleftedge @ 68
I think Scooter’s genre is in fiction.
Attaturk—actually I think the jury question was confusing.
watertiger—he changed his haircut. Much improved.
Probably I am only defending him because he liked my shoes.
Shopgirlove @ 78
I like to think of it as making Halliburton an unwitting Robin Hood.
Rationalization is a wonderful thing.
ohioblue @ 92
He he he. Pretty mean of me.
It was a very nice conversation. But I have to confess to being wrong. Fitzgerald and I don’t share a rugby coach in our past.
I thobsessed @ 97
I thought that’s what was meant also…
Soros knows very well how to make money, and knows that with this administration still in charge Halliburton is a good bet.
I’m quite the liberal, but still base my investing (as a whole) on stocks or commodities that will hopefully turn into more $$$.
Back to the real topic…this jury is killing me.
Shopgirlove @ 104
If Soros dumps his shares all at once, what would happen to Halliburton?
Pissed in NYC @ 103
ok: scotter is going down faster than turd blossom in a closed door meeting with jeff (top sider ) gannon / gukert . . .
masaccio @ 78
When I was on a jury 12 yerars ago, and we had a multi-count indictment (with only a few pages of instructions, thank g*d), we went through them numerically. We skipped the hard ones and moved to the bottom of the list. Then we went back to the hard ones, then we sent the forewoman with a question (no notes allowed) for the judge. Then we dealt with the difficult count.
A repeat from yesterday, but it seems fitting.
“I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.” Groucho Marx
Jeff @ 99
Yes, that’s why used the word ‘may’ in my statement, and why I also think Count Three is the one where Libby is most likely to get an aquittal.
I’m just pointing out how Count Three could be decided either way, whereas I think the other four counts are pretty much proven.
Jane Hamsher @ 108
This may become the most widely misinterpreted statement in the trial.
Sorry I am late and just skimmed.. Did anyone catch the attire of the jury this morning? Casual or more?
IIRC, there is at least one lawyer or someone trained in law on the jury.
Hmmm’ :)
Does 2 million shares in a company give your the right to know who’s doing what, in said company and wouldn’t that make ‘employees and contractees’ nervous?
mui @ 110
Huh…now there’s an interesting question. Any finance types care to enlighten?
Soros only own 62 million in Halliburton shares – they paid Cheney something like 5 times that much in stock options in one year (I think). The market capitalization of Halliburton is 31.2 billion. If Soros dumped all his shares at once it probably wouldn’t only have a small temporary effect. (caveat: I am not an authority on this)
Whoa, that was weird. Was bigbob’s comment sent flying off into the space-time continuum?
[Mod Note; yes.]
OT
Sen. Kerry Questions Swift Boat Ambassadorwannabe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..42279.html
I have a question of my own that I’ve been wondering about, maybe someone here knows the answer. I haven’t been following the comments as of late, so maybe it’s already been discussed?
I’m wondering if Scooter reimbursed the government for taking his family on Air Force 2 (I presume) to attend the commissioning of the USS Ronald Reagan, and if so, when? With all the talk in the news about Nancy Pelosi ’s request for a plane that can fly coast-to-coast non-stop, and the admonishments to her that she can’t take passengers for free, I just got to wondering …
what happened to “edit” – I meant “would only have a small, temporary effect”, not “wouldn’t”
Jane Hamsher @
12
Does this mean that if something develops between Jane and Fitz that we, firepups, will get to witness it? Which begs the question; WHO will do the liveblogging?!!! ;)
Jane Hamsher @
109
Did he mention if he has gotten around to reading your book? :)
Prognostication; 4 guilty charges, with one charge (Cooper) hung-up by one or two dissenters, looking to keep it from being a sweep.
Wilbur @
48
That comment struck me instantly as indicating some action being taken. It doesn’t seem to follow that the action would be no action, i.e. not guilty.
Gary @ 124
Um. Close?
Just to play devil’s advocate:
While my initial thinking was exactly like Marcy’s, I’m now wondering if they are taking the “let’s get the easy counts out of the way first” approach…. Perhaps the previous 4 days have been spent merely cataloging all the evidence and deciding what the jury agreed was good evidence and what wasn’t? And they’re only now getting to the counts? If that’s the case, then, this could go on for a good while.
watertiger @
30
Do you like him or like him like him?
Maybe change the question a little would make it more clear. If Libby told the FBI “I told him ‘I didn’t do it’”.
The purpose of telling the FBI this is to obstruct the investigation, and further the cover story.
In this case the lie is material, even if Libby did tell Cooper exactly what he said he told him, because Libby represented the lie as being ‘not a lie’ to the FBI.
Which begs the question; WHO will do the liveblogging?!!! ;)
this is getting out of hand – you guys are going to make randall blush
Here’s the note:
http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyT…..efeb27.pdf
y’all be nice…Mrs Fitz could be a guest lurker here. If so *waves to Mrs Fitz*
Why did my post get pulled ? Here it is one more time
World trade center 7 Is reported to fall twenty three minutes by BBC before it FELL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/the…..iracy.html
Please if a reporter is watching this site LOOK into it for the public
[Mod Note; because it was competely off topic perhaps? You get this one, and this one only, for the day. OK?]
JEP @ 127
which brings us back to the question: what if it’s guilty on 4 and 10-1, hung, on the 5th? Does he get sentenced for the first 4 and a new trial for the 5th?
Marcy, did he ask you to SIGN your book for him?
Are the jury instructions posted anywhere on the internet?
I am interested in how the materiality instruction was handled.
Elliott @ 80
Well, as worthless as most of the corporate media when reporting on politics. As worthless as they were before they left their respective newspapers. But to the right wing? Pure gold.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 135
There’s a Mrs Fitz?
Pat_AlexVA @ 136
I’m guessing that would be backwards. *g*
I have to stop speed reading this.
was read
Totally differant meaning. Not a bad one, but . . . .
Only Fitz’s mom
Is the jury at lunch yet? Sometimes juries like to have a nice peaceful lunch before they return a verdict.
viget @ 130
Count Three is by *far* the most ambiguous.
*If* they’re getting the easy counts out of the way first, then asking questions about Count Three would indicate that they were close to announcing a verdict.
Which doesn’t invalidate your other points.
We don’t know that they are going in order of easiest to hardest. If they are simply going in order of the indictments, then they would only be halfway through.
obsessed at 125 — We had to disable the “edit comment” function to keep the server going. It add additional load that we could not afford this morning. Sorry.
Hmmm. The foreperson crosses their 7 in the style of Old Europe…
newspaperbrat @ 140
nah…just a few wannabes and a few women (and men) who are lined up ready to have his babies…
Re: 122
Thank you, no further questions.
obsessed @ 136
The government would decide if they want to retry on the hung count. But usually, if the jury can’t decide, the judge makes them go back and redeliberate.
Politico isn’t worthless it is another cog in the right wing frameshop.
Mike Allen formerly of Time who was literally Karl Rove’s dictaphone……Pool Boy Jim Vandehei…….
Now we find out the “slow bleed” line comes straight from Politico….Priceless.
I hazard to guess that Harris never referred to the Bush/Cheney Iraq war as a “fast bleed” or a “bloodbath”.
-GSD
viget @ 130
Hmmm, doesn’t seem very plausible to me. “Good evidence” isn’t something separate from the counts — with all the dust the defense was kicking up, throwing out stuff that isn’t actually relevant to any of the counts would be a big part of deciding what evidence is good.
Woodhall at 148 — I do that too — remnant from a drafting class in junior high.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 135
Does that include no shoving pins in a candle for a love spell?
You are isolating this count from the testimony of all other witnesses. Not only Cooper’s testimony counts, but it is seen as part of a whole.
As Fitz said, it’s not “he said, she said”. It’s “he said, she said, he said, he said, he said, he said, she said, etc.”
Besides, I wouldn’t call one memory lapse lack of credibility. In Libby’s case, we are speaking about 9 conversations. A human being is likely to forget one or two details about an important conversation, or perhaps in chronic cases one whole conversation. But not 9 of them.
GSD @ 151
I think, based on handwriting, the foreperson is female. It’s borderline, though. Could be male. Or transgendered.
Woodhall Hollow @ 147
so do i.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 152
So do I, a remnant from a 16 yr old affectation (I never took drafting!). Actually, I was connected to my emergence as a lefty: I figured that if the rest of the world did it, we should too!
Marcy, Jane, would you say there is a perceptible change in the atmosphere at the courthouse today? Are energy levels higher? More tension? Anticipation?
Sparkles the Iguana
‘I think, based on handwriting, the foreperson is female. It’s borderline, though. Could be male. Or transgendered.’
Well I’m glad you cleared that up….:)
I think there’s a bit more than a few.
newspaperbrat @ 138
I think so… iirc, a mention of family (with Mrs and kids) vacation in Ireland.
Christy at 76
Yes, it does help demystify the process. I am glad to hear there is at least some effort to refine the language and model language. I would think the ABA would have a fulltime scholars committee on this sort of thing just for that purpose. Thanks.
Woodhall Hollow @ 147
people with a science background do that
My 19 year old is a draftsman. He works at our company.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 134
There is no Mrs. Fitz, although my daughter has a T-shirt that says just that. Maybe I should send it to Jane?
Way too much estrosterone in the air.
How can I focus when all I want to do is jump into a dawgpile?
angie @ 159
I do that too so someone can distinguish between my “1″ and my “7.”
Elliott @ 165
Well, since I never got very far in the hard sciences, it was a pure affectation on my part.
So do we think it is the MIT PhD?
Shopgirlove @ 76
OH. MY. GOD.
THAT’S F*CKING BRILLIANT!!!!
Can you say “shareholder revolt”????
Andres Perez @ 155
I agree. I think Libby gets convicted on all counts. Furthermore, my guess is that the verdict is coming down today.
In that WaPo article linked to above they say:
my bolding
What in the hell are they talking about
Mr. Fitz is single.
*sigh*
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..rald_x.htm
Woodhall Hollow @
160
People who keep log books with a lot of numbers which can become significant are sometimes taught to cross their 7s – mariners, airline pilots, public safety officers, dispatchers. I was taught to do them that way by my dad, who was taught to do them that way during WII, when he was a radio operator.
Woodhall Hollow @ 147
Or in the style of some computer programmers and other information professsionals. We also sometimes use ‘backward’ date notation and periods rather than slashes, e.g., yyyy.mm.dd, because the former is more mathmatically consistent for sorting purposes and the latter works better with most operating system naming conventions.
And both styles are also sometimes misinterpreted as Old Europe conventions.
So I wouldn’t read too much into that.
ohioblue @ 168
Rayne @ 172
I sure hope it’s some kind of strategery. If it is, it’s definitely brilliant. This should play out very interestingly.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
tee hee
howz husband feel about your crush?
newspaperbrat @ 140
From WashPo:
It would be like James Carville and Mary Matalin if Fitz hooked up with Ms. Hamsher. He is way too conservative for her, I would imagine. My god, he supports the patriot act, of all things. But stranger things have happened, hence my reference to Carville and Matalin.
How much is a share of Haliburton? Do they have layaway?
Rayne @ 171
How does that work? [While we’re waiting for this jury.]
If my memory swerves me correctly, on Sesame St., even The Count could get stuck on 3 every now and again, and he was a pro. Or was that the owl in the Tootsie Roll commercial? It’s Col. Mustard in the drawing room with the pipe wrench.
But seriously, can the prosecutor ask for the tar and feathers on just one of these counts? Let’s see Scooter strike a pose then.
Rayne @ 172
Jackie and Rayne. My dog would like you to make funny after his Mommy swallows her coffe. I’ve now spewed on him twice!
obsessed @ 121
The Market Cap of HAL (Halliburton) is 31.29 billion, and the stock price is around 31 (closed 30.73), so there are around 1 billion shares outstanding.
Elliot- Thanks for that link to Bob Geiger. Great to see Kerry kick some ass!!! He seemed genuinely pissed. I recommend reading the whole transcript during lunch. Sorry about being OT gang.
are they at lunch?
CHS – I still do two ovals for ‘8’s, close my ‘4’s, and no loop in my ‘2’s… all from a junior high drafting class. Mr. Cashman, 7th grade. Super strong boston accent that we all laughed at. (californians).
Well, if Fitz didn’t have groupies before, he certainly will now.
Sue @ 180
G** no, those two have no moral fiber. Fitz and Jane can’t be compared to those two.
from the USA article is this:
Fitzgerald is to meet with Miller today to discuss newly discovered notes on her conversations with Libby. Rove will testify this week before the grand jury for a fourth time.
Elliott @ 164
I do it because my chemistry teacher in 9th grade (German) would mark us wrong if we didn’t!
Andres Perez @ 155
Andres, Marcy isn’t isolating the charge from the rest of the testimony. The wording of Count Three itself does that to some extent.
But Fitz has a girlfriend. From WashPo:
never mind–old article.
SharonRB @ 178
Personally, I have a problem with how Soros made his money but if he uses it to dismantle the military-industrial complex, well then…
dude @ 163
You should go to a law library. There are literally mountains of books written on these sorts of things, all constantly updated as well. It’s amazing.
Tap Duncan @
189
I wish Kerry would have asked him if he felt any personal responsibility for the quagmire we are in considering his role in the smear that may have determined the outcome of the election.
Fresh thread for everyone. This one was getting a little long.
Well, this person loops their 2s.
I don’t. I also do two circles for my 8s and close my 4s. Maybe I should’ve studied drafting…
Since he knew that it WAS true that she worked at CIA, and since Cooper was a little unclear about the gap between his notes and his firm recollection, I suppose it’s possible to conclude that Libby was lying to Cooper and told the FBI as much, and therefore wasn’t lying to the FBI about lying to Cooper. I wouldn’t conclude that, but some might.
Elliott @ 199
I’m not sure how he made it, but I like a lot of what he does with it.
DW Dawg @ 167
Well, then don’t go over to Gabbly!
**Fitz and Jane can’t be compared to those two.**
Just sayin’. Go read Fitzgerald’s impassioned plea to congress for passing the Patriot Act. I suspect he is more conservative than liberal.
theExile @ 174– the whole editorial is a disgrace and that duo should be ashamed, but they never seem to be and still put forth this &%$# and people actually give them the forum to do so! I have heard both of them testifying before Congress and have seen seemingly endless editorials, too. The comments at the Post are not running in their favor, thank goodness.
blergh.
Tap Duncan @ 188
Hi Tap,
you’re welcome!
So Soros has 6 percent of the company.
Markets all across the world heard a liberal was purchasing Halliburton and figured it was the beginning of the end, so there was much market panic. Explains yesterday’s hiccup =)
mui @ 190
Please don’t say anything that conjures even the most remote image of Matalin and Carville in the biblical sense. Short of things like the atrocities of war and violent crime, it is one of the most revolting concepts I can imagine.
I completely understand the jury’s confusion. But let’s look at what if would take for Libby to be found guilty on this charge:
1. Libby DID NOT tell Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for CIA. This can be assessed by reviewing Cooper’s testimony.
2. Libby DID NOT tell Cooper during that conversation that he “didn’t know if it was true.” Again, Cooper’s testimony should bear this out or not.
3. Libby lied when he told the FBI that at the time of the conversation “he didn’t know if what the reporters were telling him was true.”
The confusion is whether he said this as testimony to the FBI, or as a comment to Cooper during the conversation. Since Fitz is charging him on it, I’m assuming that it was testimony rather than a comment to a reporter. But I think this might be where a member of the jury was confused. A review of the grand jury deposition should help clear this up. Maybe that’s what they did.
JGabriel @ 82
True, but it does include the lie that “he didn’t know if it was true” when he knew damn well that she worked at CIA, and Cooper says that Libby “confirmed”, which wouldn’t be the case if Libby said he didn’t know if it was true.
Sue @ 206
i dream of a future where people of all different political ideals would/could agree on some basics… like telling the truth.
Although this count is, strickly speaking, a “Libby said vs Cooper said” type of charge, the jury could be influenced if they find that Libby lied in all the other counts, and in the same way. Finding this pattern of lying would help corroborate Cooper’s direct testimony that Libby was lying on this count and why. I don’t know whether the instructions would allow this inference, but human nature would.
OT, and with my luck, epu’d, but…
anyone here read/devour Sy Hersh’s recent piece in the new yorker?
…alittle unnerving on that one prong of the four prong plan he outlines meshes with Condi’s ‘btw, we’ll be talking to Iran and Syria‘ mention during yesterday’s hearings on appropriations for the ‘war on terra’.
Hersh:
Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria.
emphasis mine
I drew all the parties mentioned in the article and found the enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend and sometimes my enemy
bueller, anyone?
corry342 @ 184
Still begs the question: who/what holds the single largest collection of shares of Halliburton??? Don’t need to have 50-plus percent to make waves, only largest single trading block (a la Kerkorian).
Scrambling to see if there have been any insider trades exercise lately.
mui @ 180
Soros gets very BIG seat at shareholder meetings, and he could likely pull weight as to members of the board. He could also push corporate policy if he has enough clout with the board.
God, I have gooseflesh just thinking about it. Soros just went after Cheney, right in his face, and he did it with go-fug-yourself money.
Tonster @ 211
Eh? Maybe I am being a little naive, but how did I conjure . . .
re the crossed 7:
I was taught to do them that way by my dad, who was taught to do them that way during WII, when he was a radio operator.
Same here, from morse code training as radio operator in VN.
Biodun @ 195
How do we know Fitz is straight, girls? He is extremely private, has no known associations with women, and his apartment is so nice that Comey’s wife sees it as evidence of a girlfriend?
Well, maybe, but I know a lot of girlfriends that have Y chromosomes.
So don’t count your chickens. Just sayin’.
Think like a jury. How many explanations can you come up with for the facts?
jackie @ 162
Well, based on Judge Walton’s handwriting I’m prety sure he’s male.
Glad to be of service!
Jurie’s bought Fitz’s story laid out in count 1/obstruction; gone through other counts and they are questioning whether Libby told Coop ‘reporters telling adm…’ and ‘don’t know if it’s true’ or not. If he’s making it up he’s embellishing his cover story and lying to FBI and guilty. If he did say it it can’t be true if you believe Libby’s guilty on the other counts: then he knows the truth about Ms. Wilson and is repeating his falsehood to the FBI and gulty.
Or they haven’t bought it in which case I hope they are enjoying themselves.
Sue @ 180
That’s an insult to both Mr. Fitzgeral and Ms. Hamsher. :-)
Alison @ 219
Randall Samborn has gone on the record saying Fitz is a “confirmed bachelor.”
Make of that what you will, but in certain circles that means gay.
I say let’s give the guy some privacy and stop all the sophomoric giggles. It makes y’all look ridiculous……
biodun @ 195:
“….My wife walked in and said, ‘I know Pat’s got a girlfriend,’ ” says Comey. “Fitz wouldn’t know eggshell from burnt orange, but he’s got a life.” “
That article was written 2 yrs ago!
Maybe things have changed…?
Just sayin’.
Alison @ 220
How do we know Fitz is straight, girls? He is extremely private, has no known associations with women, and his apartment is so nice that Comey’s wife sees it as evidence of a girlfriend?
Well, maybe, but I know a lot of girlfriends that have Y chromosomes.
So don’t count your chickens. Just sayin’.
Think like a jury. How many explanations can you come up with for the facts?
True in which case David Ehrenstein’s “I am an utterly fascinating older gentleman. . . ” might work.
It could be worse…
It is only a matter of time before Clarice Feldman will need Fitz to do the Heimlich maneuver on her and that 18 piece KFC chicken bucket she eats for lunch everyday.
Jane Hamsher @ 12
You guys do realize that friends of Fitz read here, right? And that they are all falling over in fits of giggles about the “clean apartment” comment right about now? *g*
“confirmed bachelor.”
Make of that what you will, but in certain circles that means gay.
There are also many who prefer long term monogamistic heterosexual relationships but detest the institution of marriage.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 228
AND a wee bit role for my cousin in Ireland (Ladies, he is single) who in comments wants everyone to see that I don’t ALWAYS wear a suit and tie.
Cousin Gerry in Ireland posts on my blog.
Gerry said…
When will the verdict be delivered ?
Hey check out my Flickr Website with
pictures of Patrick on a holiday to Ireland 7:54 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinglepeninsula/
We need a (guilty) verdict to put a merciful end to all this silly commentary.
There may not be a Mrs. Fitz, but it seems there are lots of hopeful Ms. Fitz (F, M, and T).
Back to reading Kafka’s Trial, wherein we find illicit lit in the courtroom. A-court’n and a-spark’n.
Sparkles the Iguana @
221
For more of these cues on graphology, visit this site
Christy Hardin Smith @
228
Fitz’ friends have probably been snickering all along anyhow over some of the more outlandish speculations that rank right up there with a clean bachelor’s apartment.
That’s an oxymoron, right up there with “jumbo shrimp.”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 228
Hey I don’t mind entertaining the troops! *g*
Woodhall Hollow @ 146
That’s not the style of “Old Europe” at all. They still to that. I use the slashed seven also, to prevent ambiguities between sevens and ones.
The habit usually indicates someone with international traveling experience or, more commonly, a member of the military.
Best Fitz Bio
Personal Life
This is the point I get to in my own life where I get all serious and demand that my kids or my staff or my friends get quiet and think about what’s really going on.
There are such important things that will emerge from this courtroom. Fitz may or may not have been able to stop the totalitarians dead in their tracks. That outcome will change the world. Either they march on with impunity or they go to jail. It matters a lot.
It’s not such a bad thing that he’s so nerdy that he’s hot, but it’s pretty irrelevant when we are looking at the survival of the rule of law in the United States of America. It hangs by a thread today. I can’t believe they found 11 people in Washington who can breathe who didn’t know that already. They will soon.
Fitz is a cat person?!?
I knew I loved him. Now I know why.
If Libby had told the FBI…”yes, I lied to Cooper” he would not be subject to this charge. But if he EITHER lied to Cooper…or told the TRUTH…and told the FBI that he made no statement (or made a contrary statement)…then he lied to the FBI. Then he’s guilty (as long as he isn’t simply confused).
Woodhall Hollow @
27
r
…can I just say that this may not be resolved til Mercury goes direct on the eve of the 7th of March? …delivering the verdict on the 8th AM maybe…because often things don’t become clear until we have a direct Mercury and frankly I wouldn’t want a verdict reached during retrograde because it probably won’t be what we want…or would leave several aspects unclear and force appeals.
Two things:
1) It’s entirely possible that they have spent the past 5 days arguing over the first 74 pages of the jury instructions… and they haven’t even really gotten into the hardcore deliberations yet.
2) A question for hte FDL crowd.
If Libby is found not guilty on say the Cooper and Obstruction charges (which is probably likely) but found guilty on the Russert perjury and false statement charge.
What would you expect a ‘fair’ sentence to be?
Everyone talks about the maximum as though it is a mandatory sentence. But seeing how we have a man in his 50s who has been not only law abiding his whole life, but a public servant to boot… what would the judge do in that case? He could get anything from five years each count running consecutively (not likely) to a suspended sentence and a fine? Martha Stewart got a 1000 years, Bill Clinton got to stay on as President.
Btw… the average prison stay for someone found guilty of perjury is 3.2 years.
Here’s my take on the jury’s question. The issue isn’t whether Libby lied to Cooper; the issue is whether Libby lied to the FBI.
The outcome of this count necessarily depends on the FBI agent’s testimony regarding what Libby said about his conversation with Cooper. Did Libby lie to the FBI when he told the agent that he told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but that he (i.e., Libby) did not know if this was true (i.e., that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA). The jury should find him guilty on this count, if they decide that he lied to the FBI about what he said to Cooper. They should acquit, if they decide that he truthfully recounted what he said to Cooper even if he lied to Cooper.
Cooper disputed Libby’s recollection of their conversation. Don’t forget what Cooper disputed: He disputed what the FBI said Libby told them about the conversation. If the jury believes Cooper told the truth about what Libby told him and the jury believes that the FBI agent told the truth about what Libby said about that conversation, then the jury should convict Libby on Count III.
Make sense, or did I mess it up even more?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 153
Hum, I do that too; remnant from being a radio operator in the army. Line through Z’s too.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 158
Well, thanks for narrowing that down for us!
That’s like those new math statistics that make me cringe: “Up to 20% or more!” OK, so give me a number that doesn’t fall in that spread.
spiderpaws @ 241:
You’re absolutely right. I forgot that Mercury was retrograde. The jury question is a perfect example of what happens when Mercury is retrograde. Trials should be banned when its retrograde, don’t you think?
Mason @ 246
Rx not an issue here – trial started when merc was direct
educatedplaintiff @ 247
Anyway, in judicial astrology — for a verdict — you would look to the position of Jupiter (justice) or the ruler of the 9th house. Things don’t necessarily go wrong more with ME rx, its just that everyone notices it more because it has become so cool to talk about ME rx.
Woodhall Hollow @
248
imo libby’s chart is whats most important – then fitzgeralds, but i dont feel comfortable posting on this. just gives the wignuts more ammunition to consider those of us who have an interest in this to be superficial or unintelligent.
but i will say that during a 5 yr lawsuit – my law team respected my input on this matter.
maybe we shall meet in gabbly someday where we can discuss this further.
best ~
Alison @ 220
How ’bout:
–He hired a designer to do it for him, and he hires a cleaning service when he’s having a party.
–He’s moving up in the political world, and personal appearance (including your home environment) is important.
–He’s a geek, not a nerd. (Geeks being nerds who have social skills. Geeks are why I identify as “sapiosexual”. Yum.)
Alison @ 220
I heard that Fitz once left food in a stove for several days without recalling that he had cooked it. I tend to think that he’s not an obsessive neatnik.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 224
In other circles it means that he knows his career isn’t one that allows for the social necessities to court a gal. Guys like this would have been married off in the days of “arranged marriages”.
It’s well known he’s a workaholic, so my bet would be this one.
And in some circles it would mean that he was a bit of a playboy, either not wanting to burden himself with one woman, or alternatively..not wanting one woman to have to deal with infidelity. I doubt that Fitz is the “playa” type, though.
The term “confirmed bachelor” has a lot of meanings…with different subtexts.
CH Truth @ 242
Sort of like, Aldrich Ames…or Robert Hanssen…or Jonathan Pollard?
I don’t recall that Bill Clinton obstructed justice or perjured himself in a National Security investigation about the exposure of a classified CIA officer involved in Covert Operations.
I also don’t recall that Clinton lied about something that would have been criminal for him to reveal given his Security Clearance training.
And I don’t think Clinton’s lies about a blow job served to conceal from the Prosecutor whether or not a Conspiracy to leak that CIA Officer’s identity occurred.
And BTW Clinton was NEVER Criminally Charged…in fact it’s doubtful that any President would be for even far more severe acts. That’s the nature of the position. One can impeach the President…but only when they leave office can they be criminally charged. Note that after the impeachment imbroglio that Ken Starr never even bothered. The whole issue was becase the charge was undertaken for political reasons…not for criminal ones.
In this case, leaking an Intelligence agents identity…has repercussions that affect the capability of agents and sources that go well beyond that of lying about a BJ.
And few relate to issues of National Security on this scale.
BTW The lie that related to Russert bordered on the Crime of “Misprision of Felony” …which essentially entails lying to “frame” an innocent person (Russert) for the crimes that you or another were actually complicit in.
Is there any doubt, really, that Libby leaked classified information about an officer in the CPD of the CIA to reporters? That, at the very least, he was utterly negligent with that information, and in violation of any reasonable standard expected for persons holding a Security Clearance?
And if he is convicted of these charges…he lied about those acts to the FBI and the Grand Jury.
That., to me, is on the order of Jonathan Pollard giving “military secrets” over to our “allies”…the Israelis. Libby should be happy that he’s not (yet) facing even more severe charges. but if he’s convicted of perjury and obstruction here, one can expect that he may have additional charges that will be issued.
Mason @ 243
There’s a bit more to this. Libby also asserted to the FBI that not only did he say the above to Cooper [Statemade made], but that this conversation supported his position that AT THE TIME he did not “recall” that Wilson’s wife was a CIA employee [content of statement itself].
So he was not only lying about what he [said] to Cooper…he was also lying to the FBI about his knowledge at the time [content].
Thus the juries question
Page 74 of the jury instructions, “Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)
I think Libby is screwed any way one parses this.
Option 1- If Libby MADE the statement then he is lying to THE FBI about his belief at the TIME he spoke to Cooper that he did not recall Cheney telling him about Valerie Wilson working at the FBI. This is the conclusion whether or not he made the statement to Cooper. He was, in this parsing, only using the conversation with Cooper to support his assertion about “forgetting”. If he didn’t forget…then he lied to the FBI by not saying that he lied to Cooper. Libby was using the Cooper conversation as factual support to his assertion that he “forgot”. This doesn’t require believing Cooper at all.
Option 2) Libby fabricated the details of the conversation with Cooper out of thin air. Again, this would support the assertion that he “forgot”. But if the jurors believe Cooper, then Libby lied to the FBI about the content of the conversation.
Either way, Libby seems to be screwed IF the jurors have already resolved that Libby didn’t “forget” the Cheney conversation.
cinnamonape @
254
I’m satisfied as long as Libby’s screwed, blued, and tatooed!!!!!!!!
Jane Hamsher @
12
here’s a theory
he’s a shy single guy, and you’re an attractive single woman
obviously you don’t understand how the shy guys always screw up their approaches toward attractive single women
that’s why the prom queen always ends up dating the capitan of the football team (Cuz the smart guys from the chess club always make their moves at the wrong time)
it’s a karma thing
(ducking and running)
it’s just a theory
Nah. Smart guys don’t like prom queens. Unless the prom queens also happen to be smart, which doesn’t happen that often, and smart prom queens are smart enough to turn down dates from non-smart football captains in favor of smart shy guys who tend to be worth the wait.
Speaking of which, what’s up with Richard Clarke? Now, there’s another an attractive smart person. Seemingly unattached?