
Well, you guys have been chatty this morning. I'm on a second thread and we're just getting started. How am I supposed to conserve battery at this clip?
For those just tuning in, Jane is dressed in some fancy shoes today, but the jury is dressed in jeans. We're waiting for some kind of sealed matter to finish up so we can get into the court room. Best as I understand, everyone and their mother is standing in the hallway outside of Walton's court room, waiting, waiting, waiting.
Okay, we're finally in the court room now. Bonamici is wearing her red jacket again.
We're waiting on the jury, I think. Okay, here goes.
Walton: I've received the parties proposal as to what I should say to the jury. I have some questions in my mind as to what the jury is asking me. I'm going to send a note back to the jury indicating I am not certain what they're asking, can you clarify what you're asking.
Wells: As long as the record is clear that it's the position of the defense that we think the note is clear. We would ask your honor not to send the note. I think govt and defense are reading the note in the same fashion. Defense response and govt response are both very close.
Walton: You may well be right. I have some uncertainty. I'll send that back. I assume we'll get something back very quickly.
So we'll wait in the courtroom, I guess.
10:19
Wells says, "we're going back to our room. Zeidenberg, standing too close to a microphone, says, "The Jacuzzi doesn't even work."
And we wait.
10:25
It's going to be a half hour. I have a suggestion, in addition to wifi, let's get the courtroom some IM, so Walton can IM the jury to get his clarification.
10:27
Hey there. Fitz' team is in the courtroom. Wells was in the courtroom speaking to Bonamici and Fitzgerald for a while. But he then went back into their room.
Everyone–on both sides–is very chatty this morning. And everyone looks well rested (though I gotta say Libby has his big cheezy smile that looks pasted on, something artificial producing that smile, let me tell you.)
BTW, I don't think Zeidenberg was talking about a jacuzzi IN the court house.
Okay, here comes Wells and Jeffress. Walton's clerk has the note, both sides are reviewing it. Fitzgerald is pointing at it.
Both sides have BIG cheezy grins on their faces.
11:05
Okay, everyone seems to be in agreement. We're just waiting on the judge–and hopefully, the jury. Remember them, the jury?
Fitz is now explaining this in animated gestures to Zeidenberg. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the jacuzzi, though.
Wells also explaining something, to Libby.
Walton back.
The jury sent a note in response, indicating that after further discussion, "we are clear on what we need to do." They no longer need clarification.
Um. So much for the question.
Wells is saying, It's nice we could come to some joint resolution.
11:08
Jane's back. She says the question had something to do with Count Three–the Cooper false statements charge. If you ask my opinion, that's the most likely acquittal.
Not that that means anything!! We should have the note shortly.
11:13
We should get the note shortly, folks.
11:15
Related posts:
- Isikoff Pops the Question: Newsweek Reporter asks Holder About Torture
- Early Morning Swim: Florida GOP Chief Convinced White House Changed School Speech to Appease Him
- Got a Question for Rush Limbaugh?
- The $46,000 Question: What are the Terms for Christie’s Loan to NJ’s First AUSA?
- Maine Question 1: Civil Marriage Equality in Close Battle





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

FITZ!!1!
Fitz?
fitzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Stephanie Miller just told me that a hearing is underway, and that “the note” will be read in court.
Ah, tommy got the zero. Good on ya.
Yeah. Feels good. Marcy, any idea what this could be?
No, actually I got the zero, but for some reason I don’t see any value in the first three or four messages of every thread reading “Fitz!”
Just in case you haven’t heard this before, you all are absolutely wonderful, the entire FDL crew. I’ve never seen anything quite like this, and I’ve been around the track a few times. Carry on!
Could our currently sartorially challenged (unlike Jane)jurors be thoughtful like with the T-shirts, and brought extra clothes the same way they bring extra snacks?
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.”
Albatross @
7
Honorary zero for Albatross.
Waiting. Want to know the question.
Albatross @ 7
how about “Fix!”
Go Fitzie!!!
OT, but it should give everyone here a laugh. From this week’s Dan Savage:
Jeans again today? Agh! I was hopeful for a verdict…
Perhaps the question is: “May we, the jury, please have access to separate changing rooms so we may don our spiffy clothes in order to render our guilty verdict of the treasonous Irving Libby?”
oh sweet jeebus ! c’mon all ready,
I’ll have completed FITZ ! The Musical before this is over X(
Are you a retired art museum curator? FITZ!
Albatross @ 7
CNN is valiantly trying to cover a few stories other than Anna Nicole S. this morning, including occasional mentions of The Jury Note. This despite the fact that, as I understand it, their ratings plunged sharply when they veered away from wall-to-wall Late Blonde Bombshell coverage last week.
Please, for the love of our server, think before you comment. Truly. Because you don’t want to be the one comment too many that crashes the site before we find out what the jury question is,. now do you? O.o
gabbly link anyone ?
Concerning Cheney’s “Around the World in Twelve Angry Men” jaunt, Steve Bell’s cartoon today is a precious, precious gift.
Is Politics.TV gonna do a little clip for us today? If so, I’ll be sorely disappointed if they don’t zoom in on Jane’s shoes. :o)
http://www.orient-lodge.com
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 02/28/2007 – 10:16.
After much waiting, the sealed matter before Judge Walton appears to have been handled and monitor comes on. The audio is delayed.
Judge Walton says, I have received the parties proposal about what I should say. I have some questions in my mind about what the jurors are asking. Walton is sending the note back, saying he is not exactly certain what they are asking.
Wells: As long as the record is clear that the defense believes the question is clear…
Walton: You may be right, but I have some level of uncertainty. Anything else. I assume we’ll get something back soon.
Media comments: I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Any read on the body language of the teams? Since we are not getting much from the note itself?
cbl @ 21
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
The question must be one of interpretation of an instruciton, how to construe a charge or similar. I conclude that because the answer had to be agreed by the parties, and the parties had a hand in composing the answer – just as they did on composing the instructions.
muchos !
abiencicero at 24 — Marcy’s liveblogging it up top. Thanks.
What would truly be awful is if it was one of the incessant nagging posts about not chatting too much that crashed the server.
Hmm… Z seems to know a little too much about Wells’ hotel room.
melior at 30 — You know, I’m sure that you didn’t mean that to read snottily, but as someone who has gotten precious little sleep and been working her ass off night and day to keep this site up and running though insane traffic and hordes of comments, and kept on writing post after post, and coordinated all the behind-the-scenes day-to-day details with the amazing RBG and everyone else on this site, I have to say: that read snottily. You think we want to try and tamp down on comments because it’s fun for us?!?
Walton’s clerk says 1/2 hour, so I’m back in the press room.
Jacuzzi? How about an industrial strength Maytag for the MSM.
melior @ 30
http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com relieves the server; put it in a separate windo, leave THIS in its own original window; don’t refresh the Gabbly window; sign in, and enjoy. No strain on the ‘Lake. Tnx to Rayne for discovering it!
Strange Happenings At The White House…web site
sorry
Sorry, Christy, if I phrased that poorly — I in no way meant to disparage your hard work, which is greatly appreciated.
The fear of crashing the servers seems to me to be bit overdone by some. Let’s all trust in the hardworking ISP people to keep up with us, and keep the comments coming!
abeincicero at 37 — No worries. I thought you might not have realized tha marcy was in the media room and liveblogging for us here already.
I’m dreaming of a Big Fitzmas…
melior @
38
Let’s not, and instead trust the site owner’s judgement, who are the ones with experience keeping the site up during these high traffic FDL days.
During the pause in action, I recommend reading this WaPo article, interviewing Marwan Jabour, a man who was held by the CIA and in “black sites” for years.
It makes me sick to my stomach, what our government has done (and likely continues to do) in the name of “protecting our freedom”.
It just occurred to me that Wells et. al. and their defense of Libby, partly on charges of obstruction of justice, seems to be an attempt at obstruction of justice itself. Just words rattling through my few remaining brain cells.
By all means, fear what you choose to fear.
[RBG Note; or trust that when people request your help they really know what they are talking about.]
tommy yum @
1
Nicely done.
Hey, everybody, I just joined Salon!
I figgered if they’re going to hire Glenn Greenwald and carry big feature articles by people like Lindsay from Majikthise, then it’s worth it to support them. Gotta give props to the people in the media who “get” it.
Michael Sniffen paints a picture for us:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..Ed7Eus0NUE
While we are waiting, I also wore my Louboutins to court on John Hannah Day. And I am wearing them now in the office for solidarity.
[Excuse me emptywheel, that’s “The Year of Iran Day”]. A year in a day? Time flies.
So if Byron York was obsessing about shoes they were quite possibly mine :)
TRex @ 44
I was gonna drop my subscription, but I’ve got to read Greenwald. Bah! And they just raised their rates, too.
I’m nervous about the question. Based on Wells’ jumping up to let the court know that the Defense has no problem with the question, I think it may be one of a standard of proof required to render a guilty verdict and may very well read in the form of “Do we have to find that…”
As an old lawyer, I’d be interested to hear what that young whippersnapper Christy thinks about this.
Jane Hamsher @
33
as Christy would say… Pull Up A Chair.
Marcy,
I think it is an excellent idea to slip Matthews one of your books, if you have one handy. He falls all over himself gushing about Hubris, so I think you should school him. :)
and let’s not forget that walking wonkasm Mr. Blumenthal is a Salon regular
EW — Ugh. Staples is NW of Lafayette Square, 1901 L. St. NW, [(202) 293-4415] looks like a serious time crunched cab ride to retrieve a power supply — assuming they had one in stock. Wonder if they deliver?
Closest Best Buy in Arlington. RadioShack in Alexandria. They don’t make it easy, do they…
Pat_AlexVA — you were dead right in last thread about power supply; EW’s got to have either HP or an adaptable one. I have both Dell and HP, and they are completely different. Got any other ideas about replacements?
jane — must be the Yo Yo Zeppas? didn’t think they came in black. And agreed, cannot think of a single pair that are standing shoes. More like bunion-makers.
Hey there, the lawyers are back in the courtroom. No sign of Walton, though.
LandOfTheFree @ 42
There’ll be more on that later today. Stay tuned . . . and please hold your comments on it ’til then.
Jeans again.
So I can go off to my second cataract surgery and probably not miss a verdict.
dratty at 48 — I think it’s highly possible that it is a “reasonable doubt/standard of proof” clarification question. That’s the one that just about every jury gets around to at some point during deliberations in my experience.
Somebody on Huffington commented that ‘if the jury wears Kelly green and shamrocks…’ – wanted to go skiing but feel glued to your site again.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 57
I’m guessing that, if that’s the case, it’s standard operating procedure for the judge to bring the jury in to explicate?
Oh, shoot, that’s not Jane, that’s me. I’m on her computer for the moment. I’ve got my laptop off to save battery until after lunch time (I’ve got about 3 hours left). So I’ll just pretend to be Jane for the moment.
OWWW! My feet hurt in these fancy shoes! But I sure do look great, and I’m as tall as Fitz and Wells.
(Oh wait, that’s not very convincing, is it?)
Methinks no EDIT POST link now-abouts. Good, cuts down on traffique. Hang in, servers, ‘pups … (said he, gnawing cuticles)
jmba @ 50
I think Matthews should go to a book store and buy himself a copy of Marcy’s book.
TRex @ 45
That means you get a free membership to Salon’s discussion forum, Table Talk. There’s lots of good stuff in its “White House” folder. The unofficial motto is “Come for the information, stay for the snark.”
Jeans? -sigh- Jacuzzi? – must be some fancy courthouse. This is a quick note of huge thanks to the FDL Team; you have all worked so hard to provide absolutely outstanding coverage of the Libby trial. Things have been rough for me financially in recent weeks, but very shortly I will be making my contribution to support your efforts. It won’t be as much as I would like to give, but it will give me great satisfaction. Thank you!
Jane Hamsher @ 58
sorry if this questions’ been asked and answered, but, how tall is Fitzgerald?
Rayne @ 53
Pat_AlexVA — you were dead right in last thread about power supply; EW’s got to have either HP or an adaptable one. I have both Dell and HP, and they are completely different. Got any other ideas about replacements?
The adaptor I bought at Staples was for my HP.
I speculated that the question is in the nature of how to construe the word “intent” in the various counts. The fact that defense and prosecution proposed answers were “close,” but not agreed, causes me to reflect on the points of contention that were fought during the crafting of instructions, and “intent” was hard fought. “Intent” is also a point that, the way it’s expressed in the proposed instructions, rather sticky.
If the jury is hung up on “intent,” it means they are past the question of “did he do it,” and are into a different realm.
voxpopgirl -
believe the tall man in the rumpled suit is approx. 6′ 4″
v o x p o p g i r l @ 65
I think he’s TEN feet tall.
cboldt @ 67
That’s some excellent speculation.
From Sydney Schanberg’s article in NYObserver, this gem snip:
I wonder if this is the $404,197,981,666 (Running total live – cost of war at National Priorities Project) Question?
Trex@45 – how much is Salon sub, i agree they should be supported at this point? And isn’t that where Sid Blumenthal roosts also?
Christy@57 – No kidding about every jury asking about reas. doubt/burden of proof instruction. Worst part is any answer given usually makes the issue even muddier for them.
Lastly, the New York Observer article by Schanberg referenced in last thread really is incredible. Nothing new particularly, but finally a well written honest take on the whole mess. Schanberg to be congratulated for this.
Nobody has provided evidence, even anecdotal, that the jury wears jeans when a verdict is not near, and dresses up otherwise.
No examples have been provided. No examples about how the Michael Jackson jury dressed, how the Ken Lay jury dressed, OJ Jury, Baretta’s jury, etc.
This jeans/suit blabber is just BS to me.
bmaz @ 73
They just upped it to $45/year.
Staples in DC might deliver to the court house.
cbl @ 67
*swoons*
From Orient Lodge …
Update: 11:01 People are wondering why it is taking so long for the jurors to respond to the requests for clarification. Perhaps the jurors are arguing over what their question really means.
Rumors are that it has something to do with the wording of one of the charges. The joking about trying to find the definition of “is”, is whether that is an ontological or an existential question.
Schanberg gets it. This trial is about a lot more than a man named Irving.
EvilDrPuma @
22
wicked, awesome …….
yikes. I lost all my bookmarks in firefox last night. I started figuring out how to get them back and all of a sudden the sun is up! My eyes are crossing with exhaustion, but I want to stay awake for the jury! weah!
MEC @
63
Yupper. A lot of the folks who formed the first wave of the reality-based blogosphere, such as Atrios and the person behind the late lamented Media Whores Online, hung out at TT early on in the post-CoupGate (my term for the Clinton impeachment madness) and pre-blog era. (And I need to drop by and say hello again!)
BOTH sides have big cheesy grins? – odd
Jane / Marcy, neither of you have a power cord? I sort of need my notebook, but I could swing by and run an errand for you.
I have just got on line…… a lot of catching up to do.
EW — I think Ferragamo was the hooker for the Argentine, wasn’t he? A lady?? told me there was another name for shoes like that………
Lotsa fun: the devil makes fun for idle minds, and does the other nasty one for idle hands.
David Ehrenstein @ 79
I can’t find the link. Would you mind posting it here?
“Both sides have BIG cheezy grins on their faces.”
After Monday, probably both are playing to the gallery.
Sydney Schanberg’s point: Fitz has pulled off a digital impeachment, a permanent one, exposed to the whole world forever.
Not like the Nixon impeachment days, before the Internet as we know it.
cboldt @ 67-
After update regarding cheesy smiles on both sides, I have to disagree. Probably something funny, but Judge Walton is being careful. Just saying…
hereLindy @ 86
here
Jane/Christy: You’ve got mail!
So the jury no longer needs clarification, and “knows what it needs to do”?
I find this hopeful.
annx @ 87
Fitz: I’m about to win a felony conviction against the highest government offical in over 100 years.
Wells: I just got a jury to deliberate for an entire week, even though it was abundantly clear that my client was guilty as hell.
Lindy @ 86:
See me @ 71 for the link.
Oh for Pete’s sake.
Staples locations in DC area (there’s one pretty nearby!)
“we are clear on what we need to do.”
that has a nice ring to it
This is all the judge is going to let us know? I am dangerously close to throwing my laptop out of the window.
wow – much ado about nothing, huh? Glad they were able to determine the answer to their own question. I’m hoping this means they’re close to delivering a verdict.
(Don’t forget about the gabbly chat app for idle chat, folks!)
annabanana @ 83
I wouldn’t read too much into it. Probably more indicative of a shared joke than anything else.
LindaR @
81
This has happened to me a couple of times, in moz 1.8 and in ff – I make it a habit now to save all my bookmarks on my various computers, quarterly, and then combine / edit / filter the lists. in ff you can do this in the “manage bookmarks” dialog…
PW @82- not to mention TBogg- a FDL fave. Myself, I’m a long time lurker of TT, never posted.
JGabriel @ 100
Wells to Fitz: I just told my client that I’m confident that he’s going to get off, and he totally bought it! Look at the stupid grin!
How many counts is Libby being tried on?
“We are clear on what we need to do.”
Sounds like to me that they’re preparing to fill out the verdict form, and they had a procedural question on how to respond on a certain part of it?
This is very hopeful for a verdict announcement today!
As Jon Stewart would say rubbing his eyes – Whaaaaaaaaaaaa?
Okay, back to work
punaise @ 95
Ding!
Ah, so the question was whether the “no smoking” rule in federal buildings applied only to tobacco?
smiley @ 100 — that’s what I finally ended up doing. A big pain.
David at 104 — Five counts: one obstruction, two false statements, and two perjury counts.
Was the note a big white heart on a red background?
bmaz @
73
amen ……
JGabriel @ 100
Reminds me of the teacher at graduation who — standing in the main aisle — said something to each student before he/she faced the group and exited, following the ceremony. “Don’t know what you’re tellin’ ‘em, but you’re making each one smile,” I said.
“I’m telling them to smile,” she replied.
Fitzmas @ 90
When I was looking for that, I also ran across this which I thought was very interesting, given the NeoCon’s inclination to buy up all the news outlets.
Checking in late so I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but did anyone hear the Seymour Hersh interview yesterday on Fresh Air? Chilling.
Oooh, this is good. If they’re asking about count 3 that probably means they’ve been spending a lot of time debating this count. Which, IMHO, was the only one where there was reasonable doubt.
I hope this means conviction on the other 4. I’ll take that!
I would have been more worried if the question was about count 1.
If a verdict is reached, it will be Guilty. Anyone here would agree that more jurors will be on the “guilty” side than in the “not guilty side”. In order for the defense to win this case, the jury would have to be split. A hung jury is possible.
I repeat: The chances of the jury reaching a Not Guilty verdict on all counts are zero.
Christy at 110. Thanks for that, and for all that you are doing. I dont have any fingernails left.
If a verdict is not reached today, we could all say goodbye to our hopes. Book it.
Jury’s question -
“Where can we find a power cord for EmptyWheel?”
Delurking to ask a question, (and please point me to where this may have been already answered on another thread) This is a weird question, and I have no experience in a jury so please forgive my ignorance in advance…but have any of the lawyers or other legal professionals here had experience with a jury that is reluctant to come to a verdict? Meaning, they enjoy the attention/notoriety and are reluctant to come to a conclusion?
Seems to me you would want it to be over with asap since you are missing so much in your own life (not to mention employment) but I wonder about this…thanks for answers or links.
EW @ Top: “Jane’s back. She says the question had something to do with Count Three–the Cooper false statements charge. If you ask my opinion, that’s the most likely acquittal.”
I agree. Of course, as you say, we can’t know until the jury comes back.
That said, I’ve always thought the jury likely to convict on the other Cooper charge, but Count Three seemed to rely most heavily on whether *Russert* was believable. However, it still refers to Libby’s statements about first hearing of Plame from reporters, so they might not need to rely on Russert’s credibility to reach a ‘Guilty’ verdict.
Hopefully, we’ll find out soon.
Wow. Fortunate timing then, re-upped my Salon last month for 2 yrs at $60.
TRex — you’ll love the free music downloads, my favorite feature at Salon next to their better journalism. If they offer the freebie The New Republic as a premium, it is definitely not worth the hassle. But some of the other periodic premiums offered like free subscript. to Rolling Stone and New York Review of Books have been stupendous fun.
Mikey — you there? is your power adapter from Staples a Targus brand? Staples shows a
Item 575135, Model APA10US Targus Mobile 70-Watt AC Power Adapter $79.99, fits wide number of machines. Also found a closer store, only .5 miles away from courthouse.
Andres at 119 — Um, and you say that based on what, exactly? I’ve had juries out for long periods of time come back with guilty across the board. There is absolutely no way to predict anything about a verdict based solely on length of deliberations. Period.
lectric lady @
56
Probably. But if you have a laptop you can likely bring it along. Sometimes you are waiting around as they do a lot of surgeries on those days and, although the surgeries are amazingly quick, the wait can be monotonous. Also, they’re doing only one eye at a time, right!
That eye will be covered for about a day. But there is nothing that prevents one from using the other eye to follow yhings on the Lake.
In fact, you might be less distracted from work if you take the day off!
Both sides are grinning and yukking it up probably because it was a simple question. Maybe like ‘can we have lunch earlier today?
Also Andres, I wouldn’t be so sure of losing hope, ever. Sorry to sound insanely optimistic, but..yeah. It’s not over til it’s over. Also, there’s a place called Hell for those who escape judgment on earth. So..Keep hope alive!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 124
Christy – Yup. Been there, done that, got the ulcer.
Pat @ 113
Exactly. Nice anecdote, btw.
Oh, Lord. The suspense is killing me. I should be doing work but I can’t!!!
Thanks for the Schanberg link. He nails it very concisely. Scary part about PNAC’s desire to “Control the new ‘international commons’ of space and cyberspace”. Thank god they haven’t accomplished this yet, though they’re trying.
Jury’s question: Where did Jane get those great shoes?
egregious @ 130
Manolo contendere
punaise @ 129
You Two fracture me!
So can we assume if the jury is in jeans, the verdict will not come that day? They don’t bring changes of clothing, do they?
JGabriel @ 122
Could have been a query about count three. But if they have found guilty on the other counts that seriously impugns Libby’s credibility and it almost follows that Russert is telling the truth and Libby lied here, as well. Since the Defense did not bring forth evidence that AP actually did send out Novaks column on Friday, that it WAS received by MSNBC on Friday, and that Russert did (NOT MAY HAVE) seen it…it is a war of credibility. And if Libby is an established liar and perjurer who already did know Plame’s identity on that date…
Well, who you gonna believe?
I never thought I’d be sitting with baited breath waiting for a guilty verdict on a guy that was required to take one for the team. Don’t get me wrong, Libby made his bed, you sleep with dogs you get up with fleas.
This is what this Administration has brought me down too. I’m biting nails and walking the floor because I’m convinced that a guilty verdict will be the spark that burns the “House of Bush” down. Still sad that “they” had to come to this to have their war.
Christy @ 124- Thanks Christy, I needed that.
Why can’t the vedict be read wearing jeans?
Christy Hardin Smith @
124
By surrounding myself with pessimism I seek to cushion the blow in case the outcome is not what I want.
Jurors’ wardrobes, length of deliberations – neither indicates anything. At all.
Hmm, just noticed that I substituted Russert’s name for Cooper’s in 122 above.
Ah, well, I’m kinda used to looking stupid anyway.
Mikey — you there? is your power adapter from Staples a Targus brand? Staples shows a
Item 575135, Model APA10US Targus Mobile 70-Watt AC Power Adapter $79.99, fits wide number of machines. Also found a closer store, only .5 miles away from courthouse.
Yes, Targus.
cgreen @ 139
True, somewhere along the line they probably asked this question and were told to be comfortable.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 132
The jury is allowed to wear whatever they like when the render a verdict. I think that the person who mentioned how miserably hot the courthouse is has come up with the most reasonable reason for the change in dress. There is no way they are going to go home to change clothes to render a verdict!
cinnamonape @ 121
A friend had cataract surgery last week.She waited 4 hours for a 20 min. surgery
cgreen @
139
does anybody here but me remember “kremlin watching”?
cinnamonape @ 134
Sorry, Connie, I screwed up and should have said Cooper instead of Russert in that post.
But, yes, your point is well taken, and kind of where I was going in 122 as well.
Some speculation…
Marcy says note seems to be on the count least likely to result in guilty verdict.
Well, my experience with group dynamics is that the group will try to knock of the easiest decisions first. Makes me think that they have already comes to a guilty decision on the four easier counts, and now they are deliberating on the fifth, and hardest count.
My reasoning is that it is more likely than not that a unanimous decision on the four other counts would be a guilty verdict, rather than a non-guilty verdict.
Just speculation.
ot (sort of)
have any plans been made for fdl to be back in dc to cover the civil suit? not that this isn’t great – but there’s more to come.
again – thanks to everyone behind the scenes at fdl.
Phoenix Woman @ 82
TBogg, David Neiwert, and David Ehrenstein (hi, David!) are also Table Talk alumni.
There’s a discussion thread in TT about “Plamegate”, by the way, that covers the Libby trial (with lots of hat tips to FDL) and related matters.
i don’t think i’ve ever seen fitz w a big grin, but i am more inclined to believe his is genuine. or maybe both are just nervous. good that wells is objecting to clarification. o/t – i’M following this on my tortuously slow cellphone. ugh!
OT, but this MSNBC story about the “anonymous official” on AF2 is absolutely hilarious.
link
If you decide to join Salon to read Glenn Greenwald and others, do come by to Table Talk White House threads and say hi. We are a friendly bunch!
BeerkshireHideaway @ 146
yes, that is my experience with groups as well. And if they had aquited on the Russert charge, they would easily aquit on others and the deliberations would be over.
I am seeing this note as a very good omen, since they are asking about the Cooper charge, they are at least thinking of convicting it.
The Cooper charge being the one where the defense is, “If Cooper made a typo when he was lying in bed and meant to type EVEN instead of EVER, that is consistent with what Scooter said about not EVEN being sure that Wilson has a wife, and there you have to give Scooter back to me”?
I guess I am biased, because “there is reasonable doubt because the notes might have a typo” doesn’t really resonate with me.
Haven’t we been patient enough waiting for the note?
BeerkshireHideaway @
147
Maybe it’s just speculation, but I’ve been thinking the same thing. So you’re not alone.
Can’t wait to find out if our speculations are right.
Mikey — thanks much for the assist.
Marcy and Pat_AlexVA — that power supply is in stock at Staples on Herald Sq/H St. I’ll order and pay for it if you can arrange for someone to pick up and deliver it; store does not deliver.
Berkshire hideaway @147,
Very likely – That’s comforting.
litigatormom @ 153
The reason being, if he said “I’m not even sure Wilson has a wife” to Cooper, he was obviously lying. So the jury would be acquitting Scooter because he truthfully testified about a lie he told Cooper. Technically, it’s not perjury to testify truthfully that you lied to someone, but it’s not exactly a credibility builder. Which would lead me, the hypothetical unbiased juror, back to believing that Libby, not Cooper, testified falsely about that conversation.
Hey folks, just sent the note to Marcy, who will undoubtedly illuminate it for us. But the gist is, the jury was confused about Count 3. It says, in relevant part
Page 74 of the jury instructions, “Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI . . . that during a conversation with Matt Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administrtaion that Mr Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was.”
(i.e is the chrge that the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself)
Don’t ask me.
But evidently they jury got clear seemingly without the prompting of Judge Walton, as they sent a note back to him this morning at 9:45 a.m. indicating they didn’t need any help.
Berkshire @ 147- I like the way you speculate.
WAG on the question: the Judge was right and the question itself needed clarification to determine whether it was already covered in the instructions. Once Watkins asked his question of the jurors, they figured out that they already had the answer. What that might portend as to the Third Count I will leave to our hostesses.
Aside on attire: they can wear whatever they want, and if some are concerned with appearances, easy to “dress from the waist up” for media.
And on the jacuzzi reference: I think he was talking about the courthouse from the “hot” references — wants one to go with the sauna.
Jo M @ 150
I’ve belonged to Salon for a year and never knew about TT – I’ll stop by!
Jeff @ 159
No wonder Wells was looking so cheerful. The jury may be onto him, but he did manage to confuse them at least a little!
I liked the Syndney Schanberg article. To me, it’s the only one that has clearly acknowledged the real import of the limited investigation – the President’s responsiblity and direct “misstatements” to the public about his knowledge.
Although it is not the crime charged, with the Miller/NIE scenario, the Special Prosecutor walked responsibilty for covert domestic propaganda efforts, involving leaks of misleading cherry picked portions of classified intelligence, directly back to the President of the United States.
In case anyone was wondering, covert domestic propaganda planted by the Executive — not all that likely to be a legal use of covert information under the existing statutes. Aside and apart from the common law and statutory overlays of abuse and misuse of discretion, covert domestic propagandizing was not really a function ascribed to the President by the Consitution or any Constitutional scholar.
Win, lose or draw on Libby, putting into the public domain the information that the President himself engaged in authorizing covert domestic propaganda.
Add the now public domain information that, before Libby gave his “Aspens” letter to Miller, the President was, in effect, delivering his own “Aspens” pep talk to his nicknamed press corps. The Presidential wink and nod about how we may never know who leaked, bc Stretch & Co. had such a great reputation for not outing their sources stood as a pretty clear direction.
The White House press corps did a remarkable sit/stay, waiting for “sources” in the White House to plant the next pro-war, pro-Bush piece of disinformation firmly on the nose of the favored few reporters. Who needs a Pravda with so many Rovers?
The note from the jury is in the new thread upstairs . . .
Fresh thread, all, with contents of the jury note.
Alicia @ 163
likewise
. . . and, yes, the question is about the Cooper false statement charge.
CNN – are just reporting that the question was on Count 3, but before the Judge and attornies could answer it, the Jury sent another note back saying they’d figured it out.
viget @ 152
Too funny. I think the AP is doing a little ribbing here on the very idea of anonymous sourcing of what is basically not very classified info. This is all stuff the “senior official” could say publicly, under his (*ahem* or her) own name with no serious repercussions.
I mean, we’d be even more inclined to believe it to be a lie, just because this official is known to lie with the regularity of his (*ahem* or her) pacemaker, but still. It’s not like this is top secret info here. It’s a normal presser statement.
yes, that is my experience with groups as well. And if they had aquited on the Russert charge, they would easily aquit on others and the deliberations would be over.
I am seeing this note as a very good omen, since they are asking about the Cooper charge, they are at least thinking of convicting it.
Has it been confirmed that it was about the Cooper charge?
Are all of Libby’s lawyers on the clock while sitting around during deliberations? Not sure 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.
Hey Mary!
Did anyone read the trash by Casey and Rivkin at the Post about extraordinary rendition and the CIA?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01160.html
filth.
viget @
151
Not so OT. I think that the media may be tired fo being manipulated by the Cheney administration. And this trial, and this site, has really helped that trend.
On this story, AP and MSNBC have been doing the job usually left for The Daily Show and the Colbert Report — showiing Dick Cheney as the easy self-parody that he is.
Cheney obviously expected that the media would cover for him. But this time they didn’t. They aren’t afraid of him anymore. He must be apeshit.
FWIW. From AP:
Of course, just because AP says so…doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true…
on CNN: just tuned in and heard part of their explanation of the jury note: It was a question about the (jury) charge: Are they to address Was Libby lying about the content of a particular note (not sure what note, sorry) or the fact that the note in fact existed. Apparently they answered their own q.
Count three depends on who the jury believes to be a more believable person: Scooter Libby or Mathew Cooper.
And we know that Cooper obviously had no motive to lie.
JGabriel @
140
Love it! When I first came aboard, with my very first comment ever, I called Judge Walton “Judge Hardin!” Resolved never to comment again!
Andres Perez @ 138
“Mistaken optimism is never forgiven, mistaken pessimism is easily forgiven.”
Chalmers Johnson, author of “Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic”, on “Fresh Air” yesterday.
Gromit @ 173
You bet. Plus they are charging “In Court Time” which is big bucks. Remember, clients lose, the lawyers still get paid!!
angie – way EPU’d – no, I hadn’t seen it (I hardly “do” WaPo anymore), but thanks – is an eeyore kind of way thanks.
I love the concept that Rivkin spouts that if CIA agents acted with the “consent of government” in the form of – oh, I guess, you know, the Rulers, like the heads of Intel or heads of State, they are “immune from prosecution.” ROFLMAO
Yeah – right Rivkin. That is why Germans who were acting with the authority of head of state Hitler couldn’t be tried, why Pinochet pals who disappeared people couldn’t be tried. Jeez freakin louise, “government” includes the laws of the land and international laws. If a country doesn’t give its head of state or head of intel the right to have people disappeared an abused and tortured, they freakin well can not “delegate” that authority to CIA agents and make them immune from prosecution.
Not only that, but any nation that takes seriously its obligations under the anti-torture conventions (unlike the United States of American under a Rivkinesque DOJ) specifically eschews the ability to give any immunity and any sanctuary to anyone engaging in torture and/or conspiracy to torture.
Is there some unique form of air or water pollution in the beltway that disintegrates independent analytic capacity?
That [“big cheezy smile that looks pasted on, something artificial producing that smile, let me tell you”] is the effect of Hydrocodone. Libby has been on it since the beginning of the trial. Hydrocodone is a pain killer commonly prescribed after surgeries to help overcome “discomfort”. Has anyone observed Libby’s eating habits? Is he eating like a bird or not eating at all? Hydrocodone kills the appetite and Libby looks to be shrinking a bit. I suspect he has a doctor’s prescription so it’s all legal, but if the jury takes weeks, Libby may just vanish due to lack of food. Or he could vanish due to dual citizenship with the USA and Israel, spending the rest of his life in Israel that has flimsy extradition rights with the USA.
Libby is a definite FLIGHT RISK!