
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
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
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)
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.