Fitz!!!

Fitz!

I guess someone has a doctor’s appointment or something?

Oriend Lodge Update: Word is that there is a note that the Jurors have requested to be released early tomorrow, at 2 PM for “personal, professional and medical obligations.”

Judge Walton is granting the request. It is noted that tomorrow is Parent Teacher conference day in Washington DC and many of the jurors are parents.

Arrggh. They must think they won’t be done by tomorrow either.

Fitz!

Flush!

Not that we could thank you all enough, but Jane, Pach, et al, the entire FDL gang, you all rock! Thanks so much for your dedication and work.

path – also an MI transplant

But there is apparently one more thing.

More cookies dammit, more cookies!

Longtime Clinton supporter John Catsimatidis will host a fundraiser at his New York home for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Huffington Post has learned.

Saturday’s event is a 40-person sit-down with former President Bill Clinton alone.

Attendees are asked to make the maximum allowable contribution of $4,600 to his wife’s campaign.

You go Hillary!

pathfinder @ 7

Not that we could thank you all enough, but Jane, Pach, et al, the entire FDL gang, you all rock! Thanks so much for your dedication and work.

path – also an MI transplant

Yeah, absolutely.

These people have kids in D.C. public schools? Shocking.

Great, another unsequestered weekend in which the jury can get contaminated!

another weekend? My fingernails are down to the nubbins already….

so the plumbers are at it again?

Interesting that the jury requested an early day. That means that one member, or certainly less than eleven members, needs to do something, and the other members are amenable to that. That suggests that things are amicable in the jury room. The fact they neede to ask for early dismissal suggests that they don’t expect to be done tomorrow.

They want half a day off to attend to personal things?

Obviously someone has been invited to Anna Nicole’s funeral.

“One more thing…”

What is this, a keynote? ;0)

I think at least one of these jurors is part Ent.

Obviously they have no intention of reaching a verdict before 2 tomorrow.

Attaturk @ 8

But there is apparently one more thing.

More cookies dammit, more cookies!

>But there is apparently one more thing.

Send more Chuck Berry!

Marcy, snow may be the least of your problems. We have winds here in Iowa sustained between 20 and 30 and gusting to over fifty mph. Also flood warnings all across the Midwest wherever there are rivers and streams. All of this is heading east.

Good luck to you. I’m afraid you’ll need it.

Please watch closely if the jurors look directly AT Libby.

Hey kids — we don’t want to restrict comments on this, because it may or may not be “the thing we’ve all been waiting for….dammit where’s the verdict?” — if everyone could please, please, please be judicious with the comments until we know, I would very much appreciate it. Luv ya.

Good Gawd man. These guys will still be deliberating when the Iranian-War-related-CIA-Agent-Outting thing starts up. Jury people, dress up nicely on Monday and Give The Truth back.

the plumbing and the trial have been suffering from …
“four flushers“

(ka dum bump!)

The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm

haha. seriously EPUd (is there a term for being left behind 2 threads or more?). there’s a FISA motion on PACER from Fitz but nothing else. RH, you’ve got mail. should folks go to gabbly to chat?

Servers overloaded.

A dictionary!!!!!?????? This is getting to be re-goddamn-diculous! They better not be looking for the meaning of “doubt”

lier
Pronunciation: ˈlī(-ə)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lēogere, from lēogan to lie — more at lie
Date: before 12th century
: a person who tells lies

Lie: To fib; to tell an untruth; dissemble; mislead.

Usually causes pants to catch on fire.

Any more questions?

annx @
4

Oriend Lodge Update: Word is that there is a note that the Jurors have requested to be released early tomorrow, at 2 PM for “personal, professional and medical obligations.”

Judge Walton is granting the request. It is noted that tomorrow is Parent Teacher conference day in Washington DC and many of the jurors are parents.

Arrggh. They must think they won’t be done by tomorrow either.

de

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

Well, knowing the word they want the definition for should be a nice clue to chew on.

Perhaps they want the legal definition of “cloud” as in “over Vice President”?

I wonder what the juror who asked to see a dictionary is going to do as soon as they get home tonight

AP – Just hours after floating the idea of cutting $20 billion from President Bush’s $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad was overruled by fellow Democrats Thursday.

I just love the courage imbedded in my Democratic Party.

No no no, the judge misread the note, the jury was requesting a meeting at 4:20. This is why they requested so many “post-it notes.” I bet you didn’t know Zig-Zag sold office supplies, huh?

They have also requested large quantities of microwaveable chicken nuggets, cheetos, an assortment of Jones Co. sodas, and the collector’s edition DVD of Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal.

eggheads – feh!

I knew there was some serious obtuse energy on that jury.

I wonder if they are arguing about the definition of “reasonable.”

Orient Lodge just said that jurors seemed friendly to each other and did not look at Libby.

Shit. I bet they want the definition of “reasonable” and “doubt.”

As a parent with child care responsibilities, if there is even a prospect that I might possibly be tied up with something tomorrow afternoon that conflicts with taking care of my kid, I don’t wait until tomorrow morning to take steps to resolve the conflict.

When you are part of a jury, the rest of your life doesn’t disappear. It changes, but it’s still there. They’ve been going at it hard for a month now, and to have one (or more) ask for a couple of hours off on a Friday is not a big deal.

GIVE ‘EM A BREAK!

It doesn’t mean that there won’t be a verdict tomorrow; only that they want to avoid feeling extra pressure to reach one because of conflicts with other obligations. There’s enough pressure on them already.

So that’s it? A very anti-climactic beer-thirty.

the plumbing,
the investigation
and
maybe the servers now
are all suffering from
“Four Flushers“

(ka dum bump)

First time I’ve ever heard an explanation of the no dictionary stuff.

I have heard that experts in the jury can’t use their expertise in deliberations. Like the physicist can’t explain how bullets can’t do magical things. I understand why that would be, but if so, they should let jurors make objections during the trial. Now that would be fun!

toolpusher @
21

Please watch closely if the jurors look directly AT Libby.

I like how you think, but tell me what it would mean (one way or the other).

Anyone have any ideas as to why they would want a dictionary. Anybody have a guess on where they are going with this. They are obviously been very thorough

Depends on What Your Definition of “Is” Is

misremember
No juror left behind.

Anybody care to venture a guess as to why the jury would like a dictionary?? Anyone have their crystal ball all shined up and can give us some possible scernarios??

Aren’t the jurors just going to look up the words in the dictionary when they go home? Or did Walton forbid them to look in any dictionary, ever?

On the plus side, the FDL tech crew just got a nice preview of what they’re in for when the big 15-minute verdict warning hits.

How did that feel, guys?

can someone please explain what this PACER FISA thing is?

If I were on the jury, I’d be doing just what they are doing. Take all the evidence, and proceed one step at a time.
I believe the jury probably enjoying their “Sherlock Holmes” approach. Good for them!
I don’t care if they take a month. They know this is, by now, an indictment of this whole crooked administration.
I hope they really cross their “T’s” and dot their “I’s”.
I think the wait will be worth it!

did we kill the server?

I tell you Marcy, they are so involved that many of them are thinking about writing a book on the case!At this stage they are likely finding all the lies that Libby WASN’T charged with! And counting up all the times he said “I don’t recall” in his statements and testimony! Must be well over a thousand!

Dee Frances @ 31

annx @
4

Oriend Lodge Update: Word is that there is a note that the Jurors have requested to be released early tomorrow, at 2 PM for “personal, professional and medical obligations.”

Judge Walton is granting the request. It is noted that tomorrow is Parent Teacher conference day in Washington DC and many of the jurors are parents.

Arrggh. They must think they won’t be done by tomorrow either.

de

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

Passover isn’t until next month.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 34

AP – Just hours after floating the idea of cutting $20 billion from President Bush’s $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad was overruled by fellow Democrats Thursday.

I just love the courage imbedded in my Democratic Party.

We can see how the Republican Party was hijacked. We can see how the Judiciary was hihjacked. We can see how the civil srvice has been higjacked. Why would the Dem party be immune to this process? The whole damned country’s a fixer-upper. As Norske would say, lots a work to do.

Of cookies? No, I don’t think so.

Pacer is an electronic database for court filings.

FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It’s a “secret court,” set up in ‘78 that can issue what amount to secret warrants. Christy has done a lot of great posts about it.

hang a left @ 44

Anyone have any ideas as to why they would want a dictionary. Anybody have a guess on where they are going with this. They are obviously been very thorough

Silver lining: As a prosecutor here in Ohio the past 16 years whenever a jury has come back this late in the game for “definitional re-instruction” my verdicts usually follow in very short order.

Do not read too much into this. It could be that the lone hold-out just needs a little intellectual security blanket to wrap his/her final decision in. If, however, the group needs to go through this word parsing exercise, that could bode poorly for Team Fitz (and America!)

Cookie server? No, I don’t think so.

Oy. And now to the Metro, and home.

They wanted to look up all the synonyms of GUILTY!

Dee Frances @
31

annx @
4

Oriend Lodge Update: Word is that there is a note that the Jurors have requested to be released early tomorrow, at 2 PM for “personal, professional and medical obligations.”

Judge Walton is granting the request. It is noted that tomorrow is Parent Teacher conference day in Washington DC and many of the jurors are parents.

Arrggh. They must think they won’t be done by tomorrow either.

de

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

According to one of my astronomy books, Passover starts on April 3.

Well, that fits with the theory I floated earlier, that these jurors are having too grand a time to try to wrap this up anytime soon (the t-shirts should’ve been a clue).

Not a lot of empathy for poor little Scooter it seems…

Elliot@50 – PACER is the Federal Court’t electronic filing and information service. FISA is the Foreign Intelligence and Security Act which allows for filings to be handled on a top secret basis by a secret court

hang a left @
44

Anyone have any ideas as to why they would want a dictionary. Anybody have a guess on where they are going with this. They are obviously been very thorough

“I’m telling you dammit, G-I-L-T-Y just doesn’t look right”

So Walton tells them he can’t let them look at a dictionary and then immediately sends them home…where they probably all have a dictionary they’ll look at as soon as they walk in the door.

Thanks very much Squonk.

John Casper @ 57

Pacer is an electronic database for court filings.

FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It’s a “secret court,” set up in ‘78 that can issue what amount to secret warrants. Christy has done a lot of great posts about it.

thanks, what does it have to do with Fitz? Is he requesting a FISA decision?

Still Sabbath at Friday Sundown.

EW, No flights? Maybe can you hitch a ride back to the midwest with Fitz!

OT: Abramoff still singing http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002635.php

As Pach and I were heading to the elevators, I told him that I suspected that the thing that was happening to the jury is what happened to people on the blogs who got into this story — they got addicted to it. They’re busy sorting through the details, peeling back layers of the onion, fascinated by the process of mutual discovery as they explore the characters and events that led up to the trial. Pach said in his shrinky expert opinion that this made a lot of sense.

You nailed it, Jane. This is the most fascinating political mystery of our times, and now they’re hooked. And the answers are all there. They’ll sort it out.

I predict 11 new FDL readers/commenters as soon as the trial is over. All Plame, all the time. Yeah.

define: dark cloud lol

Jeez, I hope this isn’t another O.J. verdict. The jury can look happy about an aquittal too.

Dee Frances said:

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

This year Passover falls in the beginning of April.

I suspect the dictionary request means there’s a single holdout… someone arguing over definitions, and everyone else is saying “for crap’s sake, let’s put an end to this.”

OT– Coincidence?
Spin?
BS?
I report, you decide.

ISLAMABAD/KABUL (Reuters) – Pakistani security forces have captured a high-ranking Taliban leader in the southwestern city of Quetta, a senior Pakistani security official and Taliban sources said on Thursday.

The capture of Mullah Obaidullah Akhund marked the first time Pakistan had arrested a senior leader of the Islamist militia since it was driven from power in
Afghanistan in 2001, and thousands of its fighters fled into Pakistan.

The security official, who requested anonymity, and the Taliban sources said Akhund, the third most senior member of the Taliban’s 10-member leadership council, was arrested late on Monday, hours after a surprise visit to Pakistan by U.S. Vice-President
Dick Cheney

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200…..taliban_dc

I didn’t get the feeling we’re getting out of here any time soon.

Uggggghhh!

“They’re busy sorting through the details, peeling back layers of the onion, fascinated by the process of mutual discovery as they explore the characters and events that led up to the trial. Pach said in his shrinky expert opinion that this made a lot of sense.

I didn’t get the feeling we’re getting out of here any time soon.”

And that’s a good thing? (I hope, anyway)

Here’s another question I’ve been pondering. Assuming a guilty verdict (on any/all charges), what is the jury’s role in sentencing? Does the sentencing phase involve the jury, and if so, is its recommendation binding?

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

Scarecrow @ 70

As Pach and I were heading to the elevators, I told him that I suspected that the thing that was happening to the jury is what happened to people on the blogs who got into this story — they got addicted to it. They’re busy sorting through the details, peeling back layers of the onion, fascinated by the process of mutual discovery as they explore the characters and events that led up to the trial. Pach said in his shrinky expert opinion that this made a lot of sense.

You nailed it, Jane. This is the most fascinating political mystery of our times, and now they’re hooked. And the answers are all there. They’ll sort it out.

I predict 11 new FDL readers/commenters as soon as the trial is over. All Plame, all the time. Yeah.

And 14 more copies of Marcy’s book sold . . . 11 jurors, 2 alternates, and the dismissed juror who probably bought it by now. I wonder if she has found us yet?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 48

Aren’t the jurors just going to look up the words in the dictionary when they go home? Or did Walton forbid them to look in any dictionary, ever?

The jurors are not supposed to do any type of research period. I’m a little worried one or more of them will go home and do it anyway. That would be disasterous.

This jury is taking way too long for a relatively
simple case. They only have to decide if they believe Libby did or did not lie to the FBI and GJ. I suspect they are now far, far off track. They need to be sequestered as a kick in the
pants to reach a verdict on the charges not figure out the machinations of the OVP et al.

But, a funny jury story… I’ve only served on one jury, but one day the court clerk forgot about us and didn’t come to let us out for lunch. We told him our lips were sealed as long as he brought us seriously delicious baked goods the next morning; he agreed! Sadly for us, that afternoon a prosecution witness caused a mistrial and we never did get our goodies.

OK. Since, based on shoddy information that was first reported, I unreasonably FREAKED OUT and opined there might be a hung jury on at least one count earlier, let me try to reclaim some dignity and agree with Peterr@40 that the jury may just be evidenceing the intelligence we have previously ascribed to them and requesting the early release tomorrow only as a contingency plan. Simply because they made that request does not mean they won’t reach a verdict tomorrow. Although i trust Pach and Jane’s gut feeling that the jury is in no hurry implicitly, not only because of Pach and Jane’s intelligence and instincts, but also because they are there and there is no substitute for that.

What’s that saying about a laughing jury?

That they don’t convict?

janethepain @ 73

Jeez, I hope this isn’t another O.J. verdict. The jury can look happy about an aquittal too.

The O.J. jury spent only three hours deliberating.

Another Gore fan:

Warming as dangerous as war, U.N. chief says
Upheaval from droughts, floods ‘likely to become a major driver of war’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401890/

So if they arrive at court tomorrow in their good clothes, it could just be dressing up for the parent-teacher conferences……

janethepain @ 73

Jeez, I hope this isn’t another O.J. verdict. The jury can look happy about an aquittal too.

except they never deliberated

I love Pach’s analysis.

11 newly minted Plameologists!

Earlier today I was speculating that something like this might happen:

*xyz @ 123

Margot @ 99

Wil @
25

Lunch is over, where’s the damn verdict?

Wil, I heard (on KO, I think) that this jury likes each other, gets along well.
I’ve never been called to do jury duty, but I would want to do a thorough, good job of it if I were. Maybe they feel the same way. And maybe they like the whole process..they are important. They are a jury of his peers.
Maybe they even think it’s such an obvious GUILTY that if they don’t putz around awhile, they’ll look bad. Who knows!

Re: Juror relationships

I don’t have any hard evidence that the jury gets along well, but the fact that they all wore the same T-Shirts on Valentines day, while distasteful, seems to indicate that they have a “team attitude”. Let’s assume that they do.

The jury’s “team attitude” would be significant for at least two reasons:

1. It may explain why the deliberations have gone on so long. If the jurors truly like each other and have a team attitude, then the process of deliberation may be enjoyable for them, or at least not painful. Accordingly, the jury would be less likely to feel compelled to wrap things up quickly and get the heck out of there.

2. It reduces the likelihood of a hung jury. No individual juror is going to want to let down the “team” or their “friends” by disagreeing with the final consensus.

Just my WAG…

Mimir @ 83

What’s that saying about a laughing jury?

That they don’t convict?

Yikes.

Think I’ll just wait until ‘the’ verdict is in. Do I have another choice?

John Casper @ 78

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

ahhh…
thanks!

Mimir @ 83

What’s that saying about a laughing jury?

That they don’t convict?

Welcome, Vickie Toensing!

I hope whatever the jury is doing shows some deep thought; perhaps even a bit of their own ‘connecting of dots’. Perhaps they’ll link something to Cheney. [Please & Thank you]

Oklahoma kiddo @ 90

Think I’ll just wait until ‘the’ verdict is in. Do I have another choice?

You could speculate endlessly!

janethepain @ 73

Jeez, I hope this isn’t another O.J. verdict. The jury can look happy about an aquittal too.

They didn’t look a Scooter.
That’s a BIG clue as to what they’re thinking.
Hard to believe they could take this amount of time and not have a guilty verdict on at least one of the counts (counts 2 thru 5), and if that’s true, then count 1 Obstruction must follow with a guilty verdict.
At least that’s what I think.
FDL lawyers, what do you think.

A Friday verdict might be something a sequestered jury would look forward to.

Y’all got me excited – I couldn’t get in the site after I was done working, and I thought perhaps something exciting happened.

It seems that the members of the jury are taking their responsibility very seriously, asking a lot of questions and being very thorough. I think that’s fantastic, for the sake of justice. I want them to take all the time they need to come to the correct decision on each charge. I also imagine they’ll follow the judge’s instructions to not use a dictionary when they’re home tonight.

Speculating over what they might want to define – there are thousands and thousands of words in this testimony. It’s not healthy for us to worry what word they may have wanted to define. It could literally be anything. I don’t think we should try to read the jury on this issue, nor on the request for early dismissal tomorrow (people need to make alternate arrangements tonight if they have to be at the courthouse tomorrow afternoon, and even if they’re close to a verdict, they don’t know if there will be another power outage, water emergency, the judge will be called away in the AM on another matter, or other issue outside their control that would hold them there. Clearing this up at the end of the day today instead of tomorrow makes sense).

Interested Observer @ 43

toolpusher @
21

Please watch closely if the jurors look directly AT Libby.

I like how you think, but tell me what it would mean (one way or the other).

Well, I’ve waited for juries, and I’ve sat in that chair looking at a defendant (but I didn’t pass voire dire) and my experience has indicated to me that it is difficult to look a man in the face after you’ve judged him and voted to send him to jail. It is much easier to look at someone you think is innocent. So the fact that they did not look at him says “Fitz!” to me.

However, the demeanor that is described here, the laughing and joking offsets that. My guessing is full circle back to zero! Laughter doesn’t go well with these serious overall issues.

Unless they are punchy like us by now and are just thrilled at a half day off tomorrow… oh and also, our general rule of thumb was a quick verdict was an innocent one, and a long verdict was guilty… but you know… they call it a “rule of thumb” for a reason!

81 phillydem says:

March 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I don’t think it is that easy of a case at all. It has many twists and turns. I have been studying Plame for years. Hopefully that are as enthralled as I have been.

Hey maybe we will get a couple of unindicted conspirators if that is their function.

John Casper @
78

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

John – if you haven’t already done so, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..FISA_court

Totally off topic, but there is a stunning interview of one of the fired prosecutors, Inglesis from NM, who is saying that he was fired as political payback. 2 republican congresspeople called and pressured him to file indictments.

When the podcast is up on npr it is must listening.

Its really long…and this guy is not pulling any punches.

Be safe, Marcy, lots of weather out there. I’m on travel in Florida and they’re talking about tornadoes here. I have been a lurker, but no more! I am reading Marcy’s book and bought one for my brother who’s equally hooked on fdl. FDL has become my #1 blog. You gals are making history and we’re so proud!! What a contribution to our democracy in these “interesting times” as the Chinese say…

hang a left @ 47

Anybody care to venture a guess as to why the jury would like a dictionary?? Anyone have their crystal ball all shined up and can give us some possible scernarios??

Maybe they’re looking up “hush hush” and “on the QT.”

The jurors wanted to make sure they spelled “Treasonous Bastard” right for tomorrow’s t-shirts.

I am reminded of the 1980 movie Airplane with Lloyd Bridges playing McCroskey.

McCrosky : “Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue”. ( inhales some glue and falls over )

Verdicts Monday ?

That the jury wouldn’t look at Libby is a most hopeful sign, I believe. If they were the least bit sympathetic toward him, I can imagine they would want to see what shape he’s in. They’re probably so thoroughly convinced he’s a weasel now, after sifting through the evidence, that they don’t even want to set eyes on his schmarmy little face.

Great post!
I’m guessing Jane is right–they are all very much engaged into the drama that we are all hooked on.
If this is true, then I can’t possibly see them acquitting him on all counts (or any for that matter).
For the most part, the people that argue that Libby ‘forgot’ are the folks that have a superficial understanding of the case. The deeper the jury digs into the evidence, the more likely i think they will convict. Thoughts?

They don’t convict if they laugh during the trial per se, especially with the defense at bat. If they laugh during deliberation they will return a guilty verdict. Mark my words.

John Casper @ 78

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

But then, why would he be requesting this during the Libby trial????????????
Could it be for Dead-eye Dick????????

Patsy Stone @
73

Dee Frances said:

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

This year Passover falls in the beginning of April.

Purim is March 4-5 this year. But it’s not a High Holiday.

new thread from Christy

Maggie Rheinstein (102) — welcome to the Lake! thanks for de-lurking, look forward to hearing your feedback about Marcy’s book and from your brother, too.

Rev. Howard Furst @ 108

They don’t convict if they laugh during the trial per se, especially with the defense at bat. If they laugh during deliberation they will return a guilty verdict. Mark my words.

I sure hope so.
- Not-Vickie

phillydem @
81

This jury is taking way too long for a relatively
simple case….
I suspect they are now far, far off track.

disagree respectfully this is not a simple case… Marcy has written a book and many blog pages on the inter related characters and actions

disagree respectfully the jury is offtrack…
Fitzgerald crafted the four corners of the indictment carefully, Walton reviewed boxes of evidence to make sure it is pertinent ant not spilling intelligence beans
there are eight hours of grand jury tapes to listen to, and compare to transcripts and the jury’s own notes

big job if it’s to be done right

Since nobody got my joke in gabbly:

Michelle Malkin reporting on the tornadoes in Enterprise, Alabama. She say that the damage isnt really as bad as the media makes it out to be. She cant find Little Jimmy Munson sited in an earlier AP report claiming that his high school was “destroyed”.

Little Jimmy was later located and suspended for talking to the media.

The jury could be laughing and happy because they know they are about to do the right thing (convict of course).

This jury is obviously serious about the task assigned to them. Let’s face it, if they “get” what truly happened in this case (how the administration conspired to out Valerie Plame for political purposes), they probably are thrilled at the prospect of handing out some long overdue accountability. I would be laughing and happy too.

Of course, this is all rank speculation, or at least, wishful thinking. But I could be right.

Woodhall Hollow @ 101

Totally off topic, but there is a stunning interview of one of the fired prosecutors, Inglesis from NM, who is saying that he was fired as political payback. 2 republican congresspeople called and pressured him to file indictments.

When the podcast is up on npr it is must listening.

Its really long…and this guy is not pulling any punches.

did he name names yet?

Pay no attention to jury questions, requests for dictionaries, or even mid-deliberation demeanor. It can mean something, or not, but seldom what you guess it is.

The failure to look at Libby and demeanor will mean something when they come in with a verdict, but not before.

Relax every one. I have waited for something like 100 juries (98% civil)and trust me, nothing means anything till they come back with a verdict.

My concern is that if the jury has become united in it’s interest in “peeling the onion”, and has become a community over it much the way we have, how hard is it going to be for each of those people to resist looking for more information over the weekend? Instead of bitchin’ about how long they’re taking, we need to have a circle-OHM and send them good vibes to stay away from computers and TeeVee!

petedownunder at 118 — Agreed. I’ve learned to not drive myself crazy trying to read juror tea leaves. The thing that matters is what they sign off on with the verdict form. Until then, I’ll just keep myself busy as I can and try to be patient (easier said than done).

The jury question a couple of days about was on count 3 (from page 74 of jury instructions). Do we have any information about how many pages of jury instruction and jury questionaire they have to work through?

Elliott @ 116

Woodhall Hollow @ 101

Totally off topic, but there is a stunning interview of one of the fired prosecutors, Inglesis from NM, who is saying that he was fired as political payback. 2 republican congresspeople called and pressured him to file indictments.

When the podcast is up on npr it is must listening.

Its really long…and this guy is not pulling any punches.

did he name names yet?

Well it was interesting. He is testifying before congress on Tuesday (leahy!!!) and if asked will say, but didn’t want to now because he is afraid of being professionally blacklisted.

Then Michele asked if it was the two dems or one republican who they asked and denied making the phone calles, and he said yes, they were telling the truth. Then Michele said that they called Domenici and Wilson and their offices had “no comment” and Iglesis said “no comment.” LOL.

He went into a lot of detail about the nature of the phone calls and how unusual and unethical they were from a legal perspective.

Do you suppose these jurors see themselves as KEY players in this historical, political drama? And, are acting accordingly.

Frankly, the reports of their antics and behavior makes me cringe. Are they TOOOOOOOOOOO smart for their own good? Did he lie or didn’t he? How many post-it notes does it take to answer that question?

Mimir @
83

What’s that saying about a laughing jury?

That they don’t convict?

I don’t think it tells us anything about which way they’re leaning — only that they’re all leaning the same direction.

Hey, Fitz is losing a terrific assistant in Chicago to private practice:
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi…..l?id=24071

Maybe this is the Attorney that Michael Sneed said was interviewing a few weeks back.

Maybe they’re looking for a synonym for “guilty”
but more so.
Oklahoma kiddo @
25

The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm

They don’t have to say the words, we all know it is one of the objects on that table that nothing gets taken off of. My grandmother had a dining room table like that. Once a year at Thanksgiving “everything in the world” was removed from the table for the special dinner. Then within a couple weeks everything was back on the table for another year.

depends on if they’re laughtin’ at ya or with ya!

petedownunder @ 119

Pay no attention to jury questions, requests for dictionaries, or even mid-deliberation demeanor. It can mean something, or not, but seldom what you guess it is.

The failure to look at Libby and demeanor will mean something when they come in with a verdict, but not before.

Relax every one. I have waited for something like 100 juries (98% civil)and trust me, nothing means anything till they come back with a verdict.

Probably the best “rule of thumb” of all!

My theory is that the jury is giddy and relieved that they have reached a verdict, and that they will present it tomorrow, and after 2:30 they will go out and party.

toolpusher @ 98

Interested Observer @ 43

toolpusher @
21

Please watch closely if the jurors look directly AT Libby.

I like how you think, but tell me what it would mean (one way or the other).

Well, I’ve waited for juries, and I’ve sat in that chair looking at a defendant (but I didn’t pass voire dire) and my experience has indicated to me that it is difficult to look a man in the face after you’ve judged him and voted to send him to jail. It is much easier to look at someone you think is innocent. So the fact that they did not look at him says “Fitz!” to me.

However, the demeanor that is described here, the laughing and joking offsets that. My guessing is full circle back to zero! Laughter doesn’t go well with these serious overall issues.

Unless they are punchy like us by now and are just thrilled at a half day off tomorrow… oh and also, our general rule of thumb was a quick verdict was an innocent one, and a long verdict was guilty… but you know… they call it a “rule of thumb” for a reason!

It’s like that when you sit on tenure committees, too.

I just read that you asked all of us lurkers to “de-lurked” last night. I have never replied to any blog and am paranoid, or course. I am a Plameaholic and have been following the story since August of 2003. My mother and I predicted back then that the Bushies would have hell to pay if they went ahead and alienated the CIA. They did. Then we predicted that the war would turn when the military families became aware of what really was going on. They have. I support impeachment, vote, and am so thrilled by Jane and I LOVE the campiness of Political TV live broadcasts. Too funny. Love you, whitecat

Woodhall Hollow @ 121

Elliott @ 116

Woodhall Hollow @ 101

Totally off topic, but there is a stunning interview of one of the fired prosecutors, Inglesis from NM, who is saying that he was fired as political payback. 2 republican congresspeople called and pressured him to file indictments.

When the podcast is up on npr it is must listening.

Its really long…and this guy is not pulling any punches.

did he name names yet?

Well it was interesting. He is testifying before congress on Tuesday (leahy!!!) and if asked will say, but didn’t want to now because he is afraid of being professionally blacklisted.

Then Michele asked if it was the two dems or one republican who they asked and denied making the phone calles, and he said yes, they were telling the truth. Then Michele said that they called Domenici and Wilson and their offices had “no comment” and Iglesis said “no comment.” LOL.

He went into a lot of detail about the nature of the phone calls and how unusual and unethical they were from a legal perspective.

Thanks!

ps news from TPM:
House Committee to Subpoena Ousted Prosecutors

Sally @ 96

A Friday verdict might be something a sequestered jury would look forward to.

They’re not sequestered!

sofistic @ 129

My theory is that the jury is giddy and relieved that they have reached a verdict, and that they will present it tomorrow, and after 2:30 they will go out and party.

As James Brown used to say Please, Please, Please!

hang a left @ 99

81 phillydem says:

March 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Hey maybe we will get a couple of unindicted conspirators if that is their function.

Could this happen? Can a jury do this?

JoyB @ 126

Hey, Fitz is losing a terrific assistant in Chicago to private practice:
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi…..l?id=24071

Maybe this is the Attorney that Michael Sneed said was interviewing a few weeks back.

I hope you’re right, JoyB.

As a trial lawyer who’s waited for about 100 juries, I feel the question and the jury’s camaraderie both bode well for the prosecution. A dictionary request is fairly benign. More importantly, if there was a hold-out for acquittal on all counts, the jury would not be jolly. I have heard angry voices through the jury doors while waiting for a verdict, and the jury has, in those cases, always acquitted. When you are convinced someone is not guilty, it is much more personal and emotional.

Something I’m wondering about at this point:

One of the jurors is a journalist who used to work for Bob Woodward. Now, my respect for Bobby is pretty much nil at this point, but back in the day he helped to bring down a corrupt administration with his careful, detail-oriented nonpartisan reporting.

Perhaps his former employee is taking that as a good example, and is inspiring the rest of the jury to do so as well.

And yeah, I think Jane and Pach are on the right track–these people are right in the middle of what is assuredly going to end up as a paperback thriller on the NYTimes bestseller list. Who could resist?

A.J. at 137 — I had a jury that shouted so loudly, the judge sent the bailiff in to check and see if they were okay. I think the comraderie is a good sign, too, fwiw. But that with the caveat that you never, ever know what is actually going on with a jury until they let you know with their verdict.

AJ & CHS – I’ve been staying out of this (till now), but I agree with you.

My belief is that the jury is waiting to give its verdict unitl Anna Nicole is buried.

Jury knows that Larry King is booked until then.

The observations made of the jury in this post sounds like GREAT news for the prosecution.

1. The jury seems to getting along well, even enjoying each others company… this is after three weeks of trial and almost two of deliberation.

2. There seems to be no apparent descension in the group. They are engaged in the process of reaching a verdict with focus and apparently with organizaional devices that will help them evaluate the evidence effectively.

3. They are taking their time – this bodes well for the prosecution becuase the prosecution told a single coherent story that is, in my opinion, backup up by facts in evidence. The defense told multiple, not necessarily inconsistent stories, but did little to prove any of them convincingly, not that they had to, but they did try.

Christy- I got my bulb food out at last yesterday, just before the snow. Crocuses were up! Got an inch of tulip leaves showing. All in all, it’s easier to wait for the verdict than the spring!

I friggin hate this jury. I’m sorry, I know they are probably doing a nice thorough job, but I am beginning to think they are either idiots or people without a life who are overly enjoying their 15 minutes.

I was able to put up with the speed of deliberations until that comment about them “grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives.” Screw that. Take it seriously, and get it friggin done.

And Walton ?? If he feels that way about the dictionary, he oughta sequester them until they are done. A) Who doesnt have a dictionary at home ?!? Does he think curiosity wont kill that cat ?!? B) They LAUGHED IN HIS COURTOOM. They have had ALL this time. If they are behaving jovially and giggling at this point, perhaps they need to be locked in a hotel, away from fun & family, until they get this very serious task completed.

I’d have told them, “No, you cant leave early tomorrow to go to your PTA meeting. In fact, as of tomorrow at 5:00 you will be sequestered until a verdict is reached.” BOOM – done at noon tomorrow.

I’m going out on a limb and suspecting that there’s about a pound of paper contraband stashed in one of the juror’s pockets, i.e. a pocket dictionary.

My boyfriend, however, suspects they’re just looking to play scrabble.

I know I am in EPU land…, and
I know this is probably inappropriate, but has anyone tried to interview the curator? I was under the impression that she was free to speak about her experience. I know I would love to hear what she was thinking and what the jury were up to in their little room, but also realize for her to speak out before the jury reaches a decision could be frowned upon. Anyone in the media room speak of it/her?

Woo truthshark! Take a pill, bro!

whitecat @ 131

Nice to hear from you, whitecat, glad you popped up and said howdy here at the Lake! look forward to hearing from you more often.

The dismissed juror is still under the same rules as the rest of the sitting jury. She cant talk until they can.

Well, I’ve only ever been on one jury, but it was a long trial (2 months) and a long deliberation . . . my feeling from what you describe is that they’re very close to finishing. Like, they know they can wrap up soon, and that’s what feels so good. What you say about their engagement in this irresistible story also rings true–and I bet they’re just enjoying the knowledge that whole rafts of Very Important People are waiting for them.

They probably decided to sleep on it, come in tomorrow and get it over with. It’s also really interesting that after all this time they’re feeling happy with each other. (We were barely speaking by the end of deliberations.) That, combined with the clues that show how methodical and hard-working they are, means that there’s probably nobody on there who absolutely cannot be reasonable.

I’m betting on tomorrow.

smapdi @ 150

The dismissed juror is still under the same rules as the rest of the sitting jury. She cant talk until they can.

Thank you. I have been wondering why we haven’t from her as yet.

TruthShark @ 145

I friggin hate this jury. I’m sorry, I know they are probably doing a nice thorough job, but I am beginning to think they are either idiots or people without a life who are overly enjoying their 15 minutes.

I was able to put up with the speed of deliberations until that comment about them “grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives.” Screw that. Take it seriously, and get it friggin done.

And Walton ?? If he feels that way about the dictionary, he oughta sequester them until they are done. A) Who doesnt have a dictionary at home ?!? Does he think curiosity wont kill that cat ?!? B) They LAUGHED IN HIS COURTOOM. They have had ALL this time. If they are behaving jovially and giggling at this point, perhaps they need to be locked in a hotel, away from fun & family, until they get this very serious task completed.

I’d have told them, “No, you cant leave early tomorrow to go to your PTA meeting. In fact, as of tomorrow at 5:00 you will be sequestered until a verdict is reached.” BOOM – done at noon tomorrow.

You know, I’ve gotta kind of agree with you a little, at least on the laughing and grinning part. Maybe I’m too uptight, but even if I were feeling joyous and giddy I would not bring it into the courtroom, given the gravity of the situation and what Scooter is facing. If I were about to send somebody to jail, no matter how scummy I thought they were, I would not show my laughing, grinning face to the courtroom.

I hope then that they’re not about to not send Scoots to jail…..

whitecat @
132

I just read that you asked all of us lurkers to “de-lurked” last night. I have never replied to any blog and am paranoid, or course.

Welcome to the lake, whitecat, we’re a friendly bunch, don’t be paranoid, we don’t bite!

Christy, AJ and EPU – I also concur, although my opinions are somewhat shaky today if the past is prologue. I will say that I have found that generally, not always, but generally juries, once they have begun deliberations, do not like to make eye contact with the parties and the lawyers until after the verdict is announced. They seem to feel a duty to do nothing to betray their status, which is a responsible view.

This is a highly educated jury and there’s not going to be any words used in the trial that nobody knows the meaning of. As I see it, if they asked for a dictionary it was to settle a disagreement.

This is actually quite fun. Waiting for the verdict–the suspense, the drama. TV-fiction has never been this good!

Keep up the good work gals and guys!

Rayne @ 149
The water’s warm and so is the hospitality. Welcome indeed.

Sparkles the Iguana @
153

TruthShark @ 145

I friggin hate this jury. I’m sorry, I know they are probably doing a nice thorough job, but I am beginning to think they are either idiots or people without a life who are overly enjoying their 15 minutes.

I was able to put up with the speed of deliberations until that comment about them “grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives.” Screw that. Take it seriously, and get it friggin done.

And Walton ?? If he feels that way about the dictionary, he oughta sequester them until they are done. A) Who doesnt have a dictionary at home ?!? Does he think curiosity wont kill that cat ?!? B) They LAUGHED IN HIS COURTOOM. They have had ALL this time. If they are behaving jovially and giggling at this point, perhaps they need to be locked in a hotel, away from fun & family, until they get this very serious task completed.

I’d have told them, “No, you cant leave early tomorrow to go to your PTA meeting. In fact, as of tomorrow at 5:00 you will be sequestered until a verdict is reached.” BOOM – done at noon tomorrow.

You know, I’ve gotta kind of agree with you a little, at least on the laughing and grinning part. Maybe I’m too uptight, but even if I were feeling joyous and giddy I would not bring it into the courtroom, given the gravity of the situation and what Scooter is facing. If I were about to send somebody to jail, no matter how scummy I thought they were, I would not show my laughing, grinning face to the courtroom.

well, unless you really were convinced that said person was just flat guilty, in which case you would not be wringing your hands over him.

Way EPU’dd, but this jury is probably punch-drunk. They’ve had no Dick, they’ve had snow, they’ve had power outs, now sewage. This must be getting a little surreal to them, don’t you think? Tha said, they are the 12 (minus 1) good wo/men and true that our legal system has put its trust in for over a thousand years. I can find it in me to trust them.

The only time I thought I knew what a jury was going to do was when they came back and asked a question having to do with how to compute the damages I had asked them to award to my client. Although we had to wait another few hours after that, I can assure you that we were feeling pretty good on our side of the courtroom.

Other than that, before the verdict, and no matter what questions they asked, juries have always been a complete mystery in my experience…..

Squonk @
59

hang a left @ 44

Anyone have any ideas as to why they would want a dictionary. Anybody have a guess on where they are going with this. They are obviously been very thorough

Silver lining: As a prosecutor here in Ohio the past 16 years whenever a jury has come back this late in the game for “definitional re-instruction” my verdicts usually follow in very short order.

Do not read too much into this. It could be that the lone hold-out just needs a little intellectual security blanket to wrap his/her final decision in. If, however, the group needs to go through this word parsing exercise, that could bode poorly for Team Fitz (and America!)

I agree that this could bode poorly for the prosecution…especially if they are looking for the meaning of words like “reasonable” and “doubt.” I think there is a very strong danger that the juror(s) who were unsure as to the meaning of a word will simply go home and try to find the answer in their personal dictionary, or on the internet. If that person(s) comes back to the jury and uses that information during the deliberations then you have all the ingredients for a mistrial.

I tried to write this earlier…this turn of events does not, IMHO bode well for the prosecution. Sucks…

Green Child @
146

I’m going out on a limb and suspecting that there’s about a pound of paper contraband stashed in one of the juror’s pockets, i.e. a pocket dictionary.

My boyfriend, however, suspects they’re just looking to play scrabble.

I agree. It’s either Scrabble or Quiddler [check it out].

I have great ambivalence about this Jury.

On the one hand, what could be neater than eleven people off the street deciding the fate of Western Civilization as we know it [okay, sometimes I embellish just a bit]?

On the other hand, I heard as a kid in Sunday School that God made the whole @%#&@*!) universe in seven days!

HotFlash @ 160

Way EPU’dd, but this jury is probably punch-drunk. They’ve had no Dick, they’ve had snow, they’ve had power outs, now sewage. This must be getting a little surreal to them, don’t you think? Tha said, they are the 12 (minus 1) good wo/men and true that our legal system has put its trust in for over a thousand years. I can find it in me to trust them.

Give this jury some dick.

Sparkles the Iguana @ 163

HotFlash @ 160

Way EPU’dd, but this jury is probably punch-drunk. They’ve had no Dick, they’ve had snow, they’ve had power outs, now sewage. This must be getting a little surreal to them, don’t you think? Tha said, they are the 12 (minus 1) good wo/men and true that our legal system has put its trust in for over a thousand years. I can find it in me to trust them.

Give this jury some dick.

I hope you are referring to Cheney

Jwoods @ 165

Sparkles the Iguana @ 163

HotFlash @ 160

Way EPU’dd, but this jury is probably punch-drunk. They’ve had no Dick, they’ve had snow, they’ve had power outs, now sewage. This must be getting a little surreal to them, don’t you think? Tha said, they are the 12 (minus 1) good wo/men and true that our legal system has put its trust in for over a thousand years. I can find it in me to trust them.

Give this jury some dick.

I hope you are referring to Cheney

Whichever kind they want.

whitecat @ 132

I just read that you asked all of us lurkers to “de-lurked” last night. I have never replied to any blog and am paranoid, or course. I am a Plameaholic and have been following the story since August of 2003. My mother and I predicted back then that the Bushies would have hell to pay if they went ahead and alienated the CIA. They did. Then we predicted that the war would turn when the military families became aware of what really was going on. They have. I support impeachment, vote, and am so thrilled by Jane and I LOVE the campiness of Political TV live broadcasts. Too funny. Love you, whitecat

Welcome Whitecat

TruthShark @ 144

I friggin hate this jury. I’m sorry, I know they are probably doing a nice thorough job, but I am beginning to think they are either idiots or people without a life who are overly enjoying their 15 minutes

I have to disagree. They’re ready to leave at the end of the day, and Judge Walton said they could leave at 2 pm tomorrow to fulfill their obligations (ie kids school stuff, Dr appt. or whatever)
I think that made them happy, and it’s obvious they are appearing with a united front.

I have to respectfully disagree this is a complicated case. It’s not. If Libby’s lawyers had not thrown up so many roadblocks and kicked up so much dust along the way both before and during the trial, the whole shebang would have taken no more than 3 days. The entire calling and questioning of defense witnesses didn’t even take a day.

I agree there’s a lot of paper, but most of it is irrelevent to the charges (i.e., not for truth as Walton said on several occassions).

I suspect the jury is not doing well seperating the wheat from the chaff.

People who have followed the case from the beginning know the entire episode is complicated and an intriguing puzzle to decipher, but this particular part of the case is neither hard nor complicated. It’s about lying, that’s it.

conniptionfit @ 119

My concern is that if the jury has become united in it’s interest in “peeling the onion”, and has become a community over it much the way we have, how hard is it going to be for each of those people to resist looking for more information over the weekend? Instead of bitchin’ about how long they’re taking, we need to have a circle-OHM and send them good vibes to stay away from computers and TeeVee!

Hey, at least the MSM isn’t saying much on this case. If the jury doesn’t decide tomorrow they would have to seek out the information. Right? Or will they catch up on the Froomkin that they’ve missed?

I speculate that, were I on this jury, I would be acutely aware of the implication of this verdict, i.e., that, in addition to the actual charges, a guilty verdict IS indeed an indictment of Cheney. Consequently, I’d want to be able to defend my decision thoroughly in detail, as having done my very best.

To Give Back The Truth.
_

karelroc @ 162

Squonk @ 58I agree that this could bode poorly for the prosecution…especially if they are looking for the meaning of words like “reasonable” and “doubt.” I think there is a very strong danger that the juror(s) who were unsure as to the meaning of a word will simply go home and try to find the answer in their personal dictionary, or on the internet. If that person(s) comes back to the jury and uses that information during the deliberations then you have all the ingredients for a mistrial. Sucks…

I think they were checking out the spelling of guilty, and trying to find out whether coconspirator should have a hyphen or not…

phillydem @ 168

I have to respectfully disagree this is a complicated case. It’s not. If Libby’s lawyers had not thrown up so many roadblocks and kicked up so much dust along the way both before and during the trial, the whole shebang would have taken no more than 3 days. The entire calling and questioning of defense witnesses didn’t even take a day.

I agree there’s a lot of paper, but most of it is irrelevent to the charges (i.e., not for truth as Walton said on several occassions).

I suspect the jury is not doing well seperating the wheat from the chaff.

People who have followed the case from the beginning know the entire episode is complicated and an intriguing puzzle to decipher, but this particular part of the case is neither hard nor complicated. It’s about lying, that’s it.

I think it’s also complicated to decide guilt or innocence. The jury KNOWS that their decision is one that affects the WH, all of America, and the rest of the world that Cheney lied us into war by manipulating the intelligence. 3 PHD’s on this jury I read.
They ARE doing the right thing.

TruthShark @
145

I friggin hate this jury. I’m sorry, I know they are probably doing a nice thorough job, but I am beginning to think they are either idiots or people without a life who are overly enjoying their 15 minutes.

I was able to put up with the speed of deliberations until that comment about them “grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives.” Screw that. Take it seriously, and get it friggin done.

And Walton ?? If he feels that way about the dictionary, he oughta sequester them until they are done. A) Who doesnt have a dictionary at home ?!? Does he think curiosity wont kill that cat ?!? B) They LAUGHED IN HIS COURTOOM. They have had ALL this time. If they are behaving jovially and giggling at this point, perhaps they need to be locked in a hotel, away from fun & family, until they get this very serious task completed.

I’d have told them, “No, you cant leave early tomorrow to go to your PTA meeting. In fact, as of tomorrow at 5:00 you will be sequestered until a verdict is reached.” BOOM – done at noon tomorrow.

I completely agree!!! This jury is definitely having too much fun and should be sequestered. For chrissakes, it is not that difficult of a case. He is not being charged with the outing of an agent!! he is only being charged with lies! Get this thing over already! There is a fine line between being carefult and smart about a verdict and stepping into the realm of over-thinking things.

TiredFed @ 26

haha. seriously EPUd (is there a term for being left behind 2 threads or more?). there’s a FISA motion on PACER from Fitz but nothing else. RH, you’ve got mail. should folks go to gabbly to chat?

A FISA motion? In what case and why would it show on a public docket? Or is it sealed? And why is on a DC docket?

John Casper @ 79

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

But it’s only for foriegn intelligence cases. Why would a Chicago prosecutor have a FISA warrant in a DC court?

Ms. Hamsher >

“Pach and I just got back from the courtroom. The jury is having a high old time together. They were to a one grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives. Pach noted that none of them looked at Libby, and they did not seem like a group of people who were in disharmony — there wasn’t one who was hanging back, nobody was pissed at somebody who was intractable. They seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the process…”

They have “bonded” which, to me, is a very good sign. They are working together towards a common goal & feel they have a responsibility to be very complete.

Professional attitude !

I would guess that they are going to nail Mr. Libby`s ass to a grove of Aspens in a way that will be very clear & comprehensive.

No loose ends.

I hope they take all the time they feel they need. “We the people…” can wait for however long is necessary.

“Small men follow the letter of the law, great men seek justice” – Buck Rodgers in The 25th Century

Christy Hardin Smith @ 140

A.J. at 137 — I had a jury that shouted so loudly, the judge sent the bailiff in to check and see if they were okay. I think the comraderie is a good sign, too, fwiw. But that with the caveat that you never, ever know what is actually going on with a jury until they let you know with their verdict.

Christie, I agree that one can never predict a jury’s verdict. However, this jury is methodical and they are doing what most juries do, going through the verdict form in order. (I have had one civil case where I found out afterwards that they chose the final number the plaintiff would get and then worked backwards to see how much they had to reduce for her comparative negligence to get there; this is not this jury’s modus operandi, as I read the flipchart and post-it requests.) They have likely convicted on two counts and may not yet have resolved count 3. I recall count 4 and 5 as being the easier counts for the prosecution. Am I right? If so, I wouldn’t rule out a verdict tomorrow or Monday.

BobbyG @ 170

I speculate that, were I on this jury, I would be acutely aware of the implication of this verdict, i.e., that, in addition to the actual charges, a guilty verdict IS indeed an indictment of Cheney. Consequently, I’d want to be able to defend my decision thoroughly in detail, as having done my very best.

To Give Back The Truth.
_

looseheadprop @ 175

John Casper @ 79

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

But it’s only for foriegn intelligence cases. Why would a Chicago prosecutor have a FISA warrant in a DC court?

It’s also for cases in the US, I believe

daCascadian @ 176

Ms. Hamsher >

“Pach and I just got back from the courtroom. The jury is having a high old time together. They were to a one grinning from ear to ear, giggling, having the time of their lives. Pach noted that none of them looked at Libby, and they did not seem like a group of people who were in disharmony — there wasn’t one who was hanging back, nobody was pissed at somebody who was intractable. They seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the process…”

They have “bonded” which, to me, is a very good sign. They are working together towards a common goal & feel they have a responsibility to be very complete.

Professional attitude !

I would guess that they are going to nail Mr. Libby`s ass to a grove of Aspens in a way that will be very clear & comprehensive.

No loose ends.

I hope they take all the time they feel they need. “We the people…” can wait for however long is necessary.

“Small men follow the letter of the law, great men seek justice” – Buck Rodgers in The 25th Century

Ditto

Mickey @ 163

Green Child @
146

I’m going out on a limb and suspecting that there’s about a pound of paper contraband stashed in one of the juror’s pockets, i.e. a pocket dictionary.

My boyfriend, however, suspects they’re just looking to play scrabble.

I agree. It’s either Scrabble or Quiddler [check it out].

I have great ambivalence about this Jury.

On the one hand, what could be neater than eleven people off the street deciding the fate of Western Civilization as we know it [okay, sometimes I embellish just a bit]?

On the other hand, I heard as a kid in Sunday School that God made the whole @%#&@*!) universe in seven days!

I can one up you (well, two up you) on the Sunday School one. I learned that bats are birds in Sunday School, and that it’s okay to stone rebellious children (stone as in throw rocks at them) Leviticus 11
and Duteronomy 21 Thankfully I’m not so bloody minded and cruel as that. I’ve grown in wisdom and knowledge despite the Bible.

A jury is the ultimate crap shoot.

They will turn your predictions upside down everytime. They will be done when they’re done.

Not that this waiting isn’t driving me nuts . . .Another pint barkeep!

There is a greater chance for mistrial after this weekend (attention: Im No Lawyer). Let’s hope no juror is accidently blasted with this Libby trial.

Maybe we should be glad that the mainstream media is so quiet on this case. No need to pollute the jury.

karelroc @ 28

A dictionary!!!!!?????? This is getting to be re-goddamn-diculous! They better not be looking for the meaning of “doubt”

‘is’

Has the art curator who left the jury announced her book deal yet?

Some of you folks seem to think the jury is going to write out a decision like a Supreme Court opinion, with analysis and rationales of each point. It is not like that. They are going to return one bit for each charge, where the bit is 0 (not guilty) or 1 (guilty). All the notes they wrote during the trial and during deliberations go into a shredder. After the verdict is in, the jurors are free to discuss it but they don’t have to, and as far as I know they generally don’t discuss such things in detail.

We appear to have eleven new Plameologists. I do think that sequestering might be useful, though.

Tannen @
173

phillydem @ 168

I have to respectfully disagree this is a complicated case. It’s not. If Libby’s lawyers had not thrown up so many roadblocks and kicked up so much dust along the way both before and during the trial, the whole shebang would have taken no more than 3 days. The entire calling and questioning of defense witnesses didn’t even take a day.

I agree there’s a lot of paper, but most of it is irrelevent to the charges (i.e., not for truth as Walton said on several occassions).

I suspect the jury is not doing well seperating the wheat from the chaff.

People who have followed the case from the beginning know the entire episode is complicated and an intriguing puzzle to decipher, but this particular part of the case is neither hard nor complicated. It’s about lying, that’s it.

I think it’s also complicated to decide guilt or innocence. The jury KNOWS that their decision is one that affects the WH, all of America, and the rest of the world that Cheney lied us into war by manipulating the intelligence. 3 PHD’s on this jury I read.
They ARE doing the right thing.

I agree the jury likely knows their decision will have a significant impact one way or the other. IIRC, it was Howard Hunt’s conviction and susequent decision to talk that really got
the ball rolling on Watergate. It’s entirely
possible a guilty verdict coupled with a harsh
sentenance from Walton could conceivably lead
Libby to cut a deal like Hunt did with a similar end result. That said, the case itself is still not that complicated. The jury needs to decide on the facts presented and let the chips fall where they may.

Re TiredFed @ 26, and follow-up comments and questions:

TiredFed is simply tired…(as he points out, by default). I’m sure he meant to say “CIPA motion” on PACER, not “FISA,” because that’s what was filed today – a CIPA-related motion – Document #307. [CIPA = Classifed Information Procedures Act.]

Fitzgerald has not filed any sort of public FISA motion, with regard to the Libby trial. The motion filed today requests another extension of time for the CIPA pleadings and transcripts in this case to be released in redacted form by the government.

There is an interesting point underlined by this new government motion, though. Because Libby never took the stand, a “significant” amount of classified information that was painstakingly dragged out into the open for Libby’s benefit through the CIPA process was not admitted into evidence during his trial, after all, and therefore will now not be considered declassified by the Intelligence Community. The documents (PDBs and TTMs and Libby’s notes, etc., etc.) were all only “provisionally declassified” leading up to trial, and so if they didn’t in the end get admitted into evidence at trial, they’re heading back into classified status, by and large, apparently. [That provisional declassification status may well have been something created to permit the government to avoid having the CIPA process force a graymail dismissal of the case. I don’t know if previous CIPA cases used that provisional declassification system, or not. Of course, most of the highly-classified CIPA documents in this case were always very tangential to the charges against Libby, anyway, which is why they never ended up being used by the defense through Libby’s own “faulty memory” testimony.]

The government wants until April and May now to finish redacting all of the pretrial CIPA filings in the Libby case, in order to release basically just the information that became public via the trial itself.

HotFlash @ 111

Patsy Stone @
73

Dee Frances said:

It’s the start of Passover I think; sabbath on Friday at sunset.

This year Passover falls in the beginning of April.

Purim is March 4-5 this year. But it’s not a High Holiday.

Actually only Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are consider “High Holidays.” But, yes, there is a distinction between holidays like Purim and Chanukah and holidays like Passover, Shevuot and Sukkot. The former don’t have the restrictions that the latter three do — they are more lighthearted holidays with lots of customs, but not what I would call rules.

To clarify and extend my comment at #188 a little, for those just tuning in to this case:

By “dragged out into the open” I mean in the sense that Libby and his lawyers could see these classified documents as redacted and/or summarized and substituted for, and also have the right to use them as public evidence at trial if and when Scooter Libby testified in his own defense. But until their actual use at trial, the documents themselves, and the filings and transcripts of closed CIPA hearings that discussed them, remained sealed on the Libby docket and unavailable to the public. And now, apparently, a significant amount of that underlying “provisionally declassified” information will remain sealed and classified for the purposes of the general public, as though the CIPA process had never transpired. The underlying information is ‘reverting’ to classified status, in effect. So the sheer drudgery of two and a half months of 11 different closed CIPA hearings that capped the year-long CIPA process in this case will end up releasing only a relative handful of formerly classified documents to the public – primarily those entered through John Hannah’s testimony.

The first extension that Judge Walton granted for the release of this information ends tomorrow, March 2nd. The government is asking today for a further extension, on behalf of the Intelligence Community, for the release of the sealed pretrial filings until April 15 for the pleadings, and May 15 for the hearing transcripts.

Have you seen the Mark Fiore today? Scooter just doesn’t understand – priceless.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/

John Casper @ 79

It’s possible that he could be requesting a wire tap on someone’s phone/email. That would be an ordinary use of the FISA court. IANAL, so there could also be many other explanations. Also, it might not have anything to do with Scooter’s case.

FISA would only be used in the case of Foreign wiretaps related to intelligence or national security issues. In addition it would only be used where he wished to keep knowledge of a normally obtained wiretap out of the records for awhile.

Fitz has done anti-terrorist cases before, and he is currently involved in the Conrad Black investigation, which involves a foreign party. But why this would involve the FISA court is beyond me.

Maybe it has something to do with the Niger forgeries?

Scarecrow @
71
“…They’re busy sorting through the details, peeling back layers of the onion, fascinated by the process of mutual discovery as they explore the characters and events that led up to the trial. Pach said in his shrinky expert opinion that this made a lot of sense.”

What the jury is doing now is the real play/work of learning.
The elements of true learning and play are the same:
1.) available time to lose yourself in the process (self-abandonment); 2.) a sense of exploration, “figuring out”, analysis;
3.) that exploration must be progressive, develop, the information being uncovered-interrelated-transfered and transformed must grow organically;
4.) there must be an element of risk, not danger, but the sense of importance that makes considered and clear thought patterns; and finally,
5,) the capacity for work for work’s sake.
If this is happening, there is a shared sense of learning in that jury room. A true learning environment. I am jealous. I wish I could watch this with you in the courtroom.
Just an observation from a teacher who works outside of school learning environments and is a daughter of a ex-POW (unconventional) education professor, David C. Davis, who sadly died without seeing the impeachment of the administration.

“…Let America be America again/ the land that never has been/ but must be…” Langston Hughes

pow wow @
191

To clarify and extend my comment at #188 a little, for those just tuning in to this case:

By “dragged out into the open” I mean in the sense that Libby and his lawyers could see these classified documents as redacted and/or summarized and substituted for, and also have the right to use them as public evidence at trial if and when Scooter Libby testified in his own defense. But until their actual use at trial, the documents themselves, and the filings and transcripts of closed CIPA hearings that discussed them, remained sealed on the Libby docket and unavailable to the public. And now, apparently, a significant amount of that underlying “provisionally declassified” information will remain sealed and classified for the purposes of the general public, as though the CIPA process had never transpired. The underlying information is ‘reverting’ to classified status, in effect. So the sheer drudgery of two and a half months of 11 different closed CIPA hearings that capped the year-long CIPA process in this case will end up releasing only a relative handful of formerly classified documents to the public – primarily those entered through John Hannah’s testimony.

The first extension that Judge Walton granted for the release of this information ends tomorrow, March 2nd. The government is asking today for a further extension, on behalf of the Intelligence Community, for the release of the sealed pretrial filings until April 15 for the pleadings, and May 15 for the hearing transcripts.

Thanks, pow wow. As always, much appreciated.

I’ve been on two juries, and I have my doubts about this one. The t-shirts were a clue—this isn’t a camp-out, and we aren’t all Bestest Friends 4EVR. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were already planning the reunion.

I’ve spent a lifetime observing people and their actions. And this jury is telling me Libby is toast.

pow wow. thanks for correcting the FISA/CIPA confabulation. I should know better than to add my 2 cents. I should just stick to sending the docs to Christy. sorry gang.

John West @ 192

I’ve spent a lifetime observing people and their actions. And this jury is telling me Libby is toast.

I agree. They are deep into “process.” They are probably going around the table in a very civilized manner, making sure that everyone is “included.”

Like I said earlier, they remind me of Ents.

none @
156

This is a highly educated jury and there’s not going to be any words used in the trial that nobody knows the meaning of. As I see it, if they asked for a dictionary it was to settle a disagreement.

Or maybe they just need to spell something

I’m tired of lurking. The commentary and speculation are fascinating. Whatever happens on the verdict, a greater plan has been unfolding through this trial. The ramifications are almost too great to even imagine.

When I heard Patrick Fitzgerald’s announcement of the Libby indictment and his commitment to finding out the truth, I almost cried. He and his team, and the FDL bloggers at the trial and on this case are a beacon of light for all of us. And the Truth Shall Set Us Free.

(Please excuse the melodrama, I’m a frustrated land use attorney!)

may Justice’s wheels grind at their own good speed.
may Karma take its course.

i can wait.

then we get to sentencing?
pray tell what ia our court protocol for sentencing?

Veritas78 @ 196

I’ve been on two juries, and I have my doubts about this one. The t-shirts were a clue—this isn’t a camp-out, and we aren’t all Bestest Friends 4EVR. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were already planning the reunion.

At Cheney’s?

Longtime/first time, here. Been reading for a week. Had been checking in at msnbc.com and cnn.com and watched the link to their Libby stories drop lower and lower below Brittany/Anna Nicole. What a great place this is. Keep up the great work. Am a lawyer and a Regis alum. Went to school with Fitz, but not in his class. Don’t know him but the Jesuits did a good job with him. As a lawyer and an American ya gotta love this stuff. Look, I’m with you guys. I want this bufoon, Scooter making my next year’s license plate. (and P.S. the only “Scooter” is Phil Rizzuto)But if you had told me before deliberations started that it would go this long and there’d be no verdict, I’d have said “Not good.” And with each passing hour and no verdict – and now it looks like tomorrow will be another zero – I get nervouser and nervouser. Hard as it is for me to believe, maybe Wells got through to them-some of them. As far as Fitz goes, just a guess but I think this is the end, not the beginning. Up to Congress to run with the ball after this trial. And I’m afraid they won’t.

Great, great job FDL peoples. I am so glad I Googled “Libby trial” and got directed here after reading the same crap day after day in the mainstraem outlets. Here’s hoping for a happy ending. By the way, I think the words of the Regis alma mater are apropos:

May ours be the noble hearts
Strong to endure
Daring though skies be dark
And roadways unsure
May ours be the heroes part
Ready to do
We are your sons fair Regis
our spirit is from you.

For you Fitz!

yellowdog jim @ 197

may Justice’s wheels grind at their own good speed.
may Karma take its course.

i can wait.

then we get to sentencing?
pray tell what ia our court protocol for sentencing?

No melodrama, just a heart-spoken expression of how many of us feel.

clair de lune @ 196

I’m tired of lurking. The commentary and speculation are fascinating. Whatever happens on the verdict, a greater plan has been unfolding through this trial. The ramifications are almost too great to even imagine.

When I heard Patrick Fitzgerald’s announcement of the Libby indictment and his commitment to finding out the truth, I almost cried. He and his team, and the FDL bloggers at the trial and on this case are a beacon of light for all of us. And the Truth Shall Set Us Free.

(Please excuse the melodrama, I’m a frustrated land use attorney!)

Whoops, the comment above was in response to clair de lune, but I am with yellow dog too!

My pleasure, Jane, & TiredFed (no worries).

pow-wow:
thank you for those 2 posts. i am relatively new to the site, but long to the wilson/plame cause, so it is quite wonderful for me to find your informed posts here.

in addition to being illuminating about the CIPA process, (& how it pertains to this stage of the case), i also appreciated these last 2 posts for their potential to remedy the posts borne of impatience.

there’s a huge spotlight on this website & all of us supporters right now, & it’s growing wider every minute we get closer to a verdict due to all the press it’s been receiving, (nyt). hopefully more ppl will come to understand why the wheels of our justice system turn slowly, via your informative posts.

best ~

Much thanks, pow wow.

The jury should do a good job, but they will be deliberating longer than the trial itself pretty soon!

I think they should have been sequestered, now imagine another weekend for them to lose another juror.

For those who are interested, I will give a considered, respectful and (I hope) reasonable expression of my opinion (knowing I am a conservative)- for those not interested in such, please just skip.

I suspect the word the juror wants defined is “obstruction”. I have gien this a lot of thought, and I think on each other count there is “reasonable” doubt. However, as I like to think of myself as a “non-wingnut” conservative, there IS a certain smell about all this. I have reasonable doubt about each of the single conversations in the indictment, but there is a mass of evidence that, at the VERY least, Libby was not helpful in his “cooperation”. I personally don’t put much stock in the testimony of Russert or Cooper, but I can’t escape the feeling that something not quite “kosher” went down here. On the other hand, I hope if the jury does convict, they do so on much more solid evidence than a feeling that something here is rotten. I wouldn’t want to go to jail on someone’s “feelings”.

This is offered in good faith with no evil intention. I will not argue; this is my opinion and if it offends you, please just more on. Thanks!

mikey @
212

For those who are interested, I will give a considered, respectful and (I hope) reasonable expression of my opinion (knowing I am a conservative)- for those not interested in such, please just skip.

I suspect the word the juror wants defined is “obstruction”. I have gien this a lot of thought, and I think on each other count there is “reasonable” doubt. However, as I like to think of myself as a “non-wingnut” conservative, there IS a certain smell about all this. I have reasonable doubt about each of the single conversations in the indictment, but there is a mass of evidence that, at the VERY least, Libby was not helpful in his “cooperation”. I personally don’t put much stock in the testimony of Russert or Cooper, but I can’t escape the feeling that something not quite “kosher” went down here. On the other hand, I hope if the jury does convict, they do so on much more solid evidence than a feeling that something here is rotten. I wouldn’t want to go to jail on someone’s “feelings”.

This is offered in good faith with no evil intention. I will not argue; this is my opinion and if it offends you, please just more on. Thanks!

I agree with the sentiments but it is 9 he saids to 1, the only other problem is Libby memory arguments which don’t seem credible to me, but I would have to admit I would probably be too biased to serve on this jury.

This does seem to point out the problem with doing each count separately, since it is 1 he said vs. 1 she said in each case. Though they do indirectly support each other.

My personal experiences with being on federal juries suggest that sometimes one gets really good juries, ones who have a really good time being really good juries. They go over all the evidence with a fine tooth comb, quite at leisure, and then, taking pride in their reasoning, eventually present their verdicts — rather later than expected. An art, not a science, perhaps, but very finely and deliberately done.

Beautiful writing. I could see the scene as I read.

A snapshot of a now that will live into its own future.

Your powers of observation and wordsmithing are a fine pairing.

Mahalo.

Tannen @ 52

If I were on the jury, I’d be doing just what they are doing. Take all the evidence, and proceed one step at a time.
I believe the jury probably enjoying their “Sherlock Holmes” approach. Good for them!
I don’t care if they take a month. They know this is, by now, an indictment of this whole crooked administration.
I hope they really cross their “T’s” and dot their “I’s”.
I think the wait will be worth it!

Here! Here! or is it Hear! Hear! – someone got a dictionary?

All of us are sitting on the pin they put us on, gripped with the expectation of hopelessness and silence – in the face of a growing tyranny – if the pin drops. Do they remain untouchable on all other counts of their crimes against humanity? We fear so as we huddle together on this one pin.

We need to address the psychology of the their campaign of terror. We need to crack the code in their war of rhetoric. This country is caught in the grip of a quiet hysteria of fear. Humor and reason have done nothing to stop this murderous crowd because they have employed their Doctors of Psychology to use the wisdom of the social sciences against us. The CIA has done it elsewhere: I think of David Atlee Philips campaign of terror in Chile leading up to the overthrow of Allende. Read about “the quartered man, ” a cartoon-like figure who kept cropping up in the press concurrently with body parts being found floating in Chile’s waterways. Why not here? Of course here! They are constantly working on us, drilling us, filling the airwaves with banality and misinformation with the desired effect of pummeling and numbing us. We have a Constitution that allows us to wrest control of the likes of the Bush Crime Family and yet the critical mass of us retreats into disturbed complacency. I appeal to Pach and others with a background in psychology to help find the words to break through this psychic miasma. “We need a physician for the human condition, don’t need no politician to make my day.”