Also, yesterday afternoon (3:45) the jury asked for another post-it flip chart pad.
We would like another big Post-it pad. The large one for the easel.
Someone has been in too many business brainstorming sessions, I think. Jokes in the media room about "The Libby Trial, brought to you by Post-It." The jury is starting another day of deliberations. No word yet on a verdict — you'll know as soon as we know. And in the meantime…
Remember a few weeks ago, when Jim Marcinkowski challenged Ted Wells to put his punk on the stand –either one of them. Well, it seems like Marcinkowski is a little bit irked that Wells didn't do so. Because he really lays the slapdown on Victoria Toensing in this post at No Quarter. He starts by reminding her (and who should have to remind Toensing of this, after her rants about Clinton?) that perjury is a crime.
Second, to allege that there first must be an underlying crime to bring a perjury charge is flat wrong, and every first-year law student knows it. Perjury is itself a crime, period. Under the Grand Jury system, evidence is presented to a panel. If the panel decides that a crime was committed, then an indictment is issued. If not, the case ends. Either way, the evidence submitted must be the truth. You don’t get to lie to a Grand Jury. That’s pretty simple, unless of course you feel that one should be free to lie and suffer no consequence – hardly an argument that should be advanced by an attorney and officer of the court.
Marcinkowski then explains a few things about spying.
To assert that Valerie was not covert is to assert that the CIA operates public branch offices overseas. Victoria, here’s a news flash for you – there are a lot of people in this world that don’t like the United States in general and the CIA in particular. Anyone in the CIA traveling overseas would be as nuts as your op-ed to reveal that association. CIA officers and offices are placed all over the world. I really don’t recall the CIA crest adorning any office or being listed in any embassy directory. Victoria, the CIA is a spy agency, it is full of spies who spy on objects of interest to the United States. There are no non-covert spies.
To add a gloss of legitimacy, Ms. Toensing erroneously cites the law as requiring the covert agent to have had a “foreign assignment,” then concludes that Valerie was not “stationed” overseas. Nice try. The law uses neither of these descriptions as a basis for defining the criminal act of disclosing the identity of a covert agent. The law only requires that the agent have served overseas within the preceding five years of his or her disclosure. CIA officers may very well serve overseas by meeting with secret sources in third countries. The fact that they may be “stationed” or “assigned” to Washington, D.C. does not prohibit them from serving overseas by actually engaging in clandestine operations in other countries and returning thereafter to this country. Would the purpose of the law designed to protect our agents operating overseas be served by distinguishing between the two scenarios? If so, then Ms. Toensing, who claims to have assisted the Senate Intelligence Committee in drafting the law, did a very lousy job.
And finally, he hits the right note of seriousness about a officer of the court making false statements.
Rules of professional conduct for attorneys around the country make numerous references to truth telling both inside and outside the courtroom, e.g. “…an advocate must disclose the existence of perjury….” or, “…a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person…”
That about hits all the right notes, huh?
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
FITZ!
Today!
Marcy!!!
Fitz!
“There are no non-covert spies.” I think that should become something of a mantra.
No word on how the jury was dressed?
Hey pups!!!!!!!!
ql in ny @ 6
We haven’t heard in the media room yet–though we have asked.
I met someone who worked for the SEC and I asked him about the Martha Stewart case. He told me that one of the biggest factors in going after her was that she had been a broker so she understood the rules; she really could NOT claim ignorance.
EW is right, perjury is a crime. But for a man like Scooter Libby, who was a powerful attorney, to go into the FBI and lie and to go before a grand jury and lie. He absolutely knew that what he was doing was a crime and he absolutely knew better.
Hey Christy – great piece. Someone should send it directly to Little Debbie and Robert Kaiser.
I’m never a grammer nitpicker but you need to correct your second to last sentence because it impacts the very fine point you make at the end.
“he hits the right note of seriousness about an officer (not office)
Most of the right notes. But you had to hit the Clinton hypocracy note yourself.
Any chance Vicky might need to have her credentials re-evaluated before a committee?
At this point, they’re just playing Pictionary.
dab_from_CT @ 10
Fixed it, thanks. Very tired this morning.
emptywheel @
8
Make sure you breathe heavily when doing so, adds that extra-touch of class. ;-)
Meanwhile, I know it’s a blogwhore, but I’m so delighted with this applicable bit of Gilda Radner video as applied to Bush I’m going to do it anyway (as if I can be stopped).
It works for Toensing too.
If Fitz hands down more indictments, I’ll just quit my job the day the trial starts.
Marcy – I’m a consultant too and got a real chuckle from your reference to a “brainstorming” session when the jury asked for a flip chart & easle. Too funny.
Is this a discouraging sign? I thought we were past the brainstorming stage and into deciding the verdict for each count.
Arrrggghhh
And please do keep us posted about jury attire this morning.
Keep in mind that Teonsing is ALSO a lawyer. I don’t know if public statements that are factually false and within her scope of expertise are a crime but they certainly rise to the level of being unethical if you ask me, and she should be ashamed.
emptywheel @ 13
I meant Marcy – not Christy. I guess I’m tired, too.
First pic of the deliberation room
http://www.microcontroller.com…..sp?did=131
CLAMBERITE @ 18
I’d rather see her disbarred.
dab_from_CT @ 17
You think they are using Alpha’s and Omega’s too?
ccmask @ 20
LOL
Jane S. @ 8
Great point. Did Fitz stress the point that Libby was a lawyer and definitely should know what constitutes lying and perjury, in his rebuttal?? Or was it so obvious a point it didn’t need to be underlined?
Teonsing is a partisan hack hiding behind her law degree. I despise what she wrote in the Wash. Post and I think the Post had no business publishing the RNC position paper on the Libby trial but I don’t think she can be disbarred, just criticized.
Yeah, Marcinkowski! I loved the post where he challenged Wells to put “his punk on the stand”, and this is a terrific followup.
I’m gonna hit the shower… when I come back, I hope there will be more news than “jury requests new highlighters in an array of spring colors and 11 packages of Ho-Hos”.
Where do the jury notes that they make throughout the trial and in the deliberations (like big post-it flip pads) go to after the trial? Do you get to dig into them?
Christy,
Can you get Jim to repost this here?
It sure would be convenient to use the spotlight function.
I can think of lots o media outlets to send this to.
Just Asking
dab_from_CT @ 10
Here’s the e-mail addy for diGenova & Toensing
dt@diGenovaToensing.com
Jane S. @ 25
May she be forced to perform grunt due diligence work for the rest of her days.
Jane S. @ 25
Toensing, Coulter and Ernest T. Bass, ESQ are all lawyers.
Making me think, maybe I should be the one surrendering my license, because it clearly has no value.
Serious blizzarding happening here in Minnesota. 12-14 inches is the last report I heard.
In my completely talking out of my ass opinion, the fact they are requesting office supplies means 2 things:
1. They are doing exactly what Fitz wants them to do. Good.
2. Somebody is going to do really well on E-Bay in a few days.
Attaturk @ 31
They certainly do give lawyers a bad name. IANAL but I am married to one who teaches law and I’ve been telling him that all of him students should have been reading the Libby trial live blogging. Fitzgerald is a study in how to handle yourself in the courtroom.
Just speculation – the post it boards are, to me, a sign that the jury is trying to really chart out what occurred.
The jury is not throwing up their hands and giving in to confusion as Libby’s team would prefer.
I think there might be a few on the jury who are still trying to understand or who disagree with the majority based on a nebulous confusion/stubborness. The post-it pads are part of the continued effort to plot out the events step-by-step for them. To erase confusion.
I take this as a good sign.
Correct me if I’m wrong, lawyer-types, but it seems to me that the debate over covert/overt is completely off-base.
There would not be a trial in the first place if she was not covert.
Why would they have an investigation at all if revealing her identity was not outing a covert agent?
dab_from_CT @ 17
You know, when I was working with Safir Ahmed on the book, I was really uncomfortable for a while. I felt like I was on the wrong side of the editor’s pen, given what I was used to.
But then he took out precisely those post-it pads the jury asked for. And it was like a big gulp of mother’s milk for me. Ah, flip charts, I remember thinking. All is right with the world.
Pretty sick if you ask me.
fattues @ 27
They’re all destroyed.
What’s significant here is that they wanted the easel size. That’ll allow them to make eleven matching paper hats, to wear when they deliver the verdict in an hour.
-95, who’s now willing to admit he doesn’t have the first clue what the jury’s up to.
Alicia @
35
Her status has nothing to do with the case, it’s just about Libby lying. . .right?
Don’t forget that paragon of banality, Althouse. While I shudder to think that she ever actually practiced law, she does in fact teach poor, unsuspecting students.
Isn’t there a study that if Jane wears boots, the jury will make a decision today?
Asking for a post-it board means they are not even close to being done. IMHO.
I have been lurking for well over a year. But it is a lovely day here in Paris –perfect weather for crawling out from under a rock – and I thought you all might find amusing lil’ Debbie’s reply (unedited by me) to the email I sent her about the Wapo not revealing Toensing’s “interest” in the case when they published her op-ed.
Re: Toensing and interfering with the judicial process
Date : 27/02/2007 18:07:42
De : ombudsman@washpost.com
I agree that The Pot should have revealed that and I said so in my column.
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
She calls the paper she works for “ The Pot”!… as in chamber pot?
P.S. thanks to everyone at FDL for your great work.
I like the Arial font in the quote boxes.
cfeddy @ 42
There is a study that says anything you want to hear!
watertiger @ 21
No offense meant, but if lawyers could be disbarred for lying, we’d have a hard time finding one when we really need them…
raven @ 46
Well we have a control–yesterday she wore fancy shoes that were NOT boots and we had no verdict.
Whatever credibility Toensing once had (y’know, maybe she once did) as a legal commentator, she now is openly a paid-for flake/hack. Oh, and she should be disbarred for knowingly making false statements about legal issues in a public forum.
watertiger @ 40
Didn’t Mr. Haney on Green Acres sell law degrees? Maybe that’s where Vicky got hers.
To assert that Valerie was not covert is to assert that the CIA operates public branch offices overseas
Facts not in evidence. There has not, to this date, been any ‘official’ confirmation that Mrs. Wilson was ‘covert’. When it has been confirmed by the CIA that she was ‘covert’, only then can any arguments be made based on that premise.
Both sides make assertions, neither presents any ‘facts’ confirming that Mrs. Wilson was in fact ‘covert’. Any arguments based on facts not in eveidence are just a waste of time.
Is it called mastrubation when you do it to a keyboard?
raven @ 40
Yes, but what he lied about was an investigation into who outed Valerie Plame, so he would not have been asked any questions to lie about.
cathy @ 43
I agree, but I am holding on the hope that this applies only to the Cooper charge, i.e., the one they had the question about yesterday. Here’s hoping that they are using the board to go through that charge, and that charge only.
And in a EPU from the other thread, I’m afraid that I can’t wear boots today, but I do have on a lovely pair of ballet flats.
raven @ 40
But raven, Libby’s lying for which he was indicted came during the FBI investigation. The investigation itself was triggered by a referral by the CIA to DOJ, which, as Alicia noted, would almost certainly not have occurred had Plame not been covert.
dab_from_CT @ 24
I definitely remember Fitz saying that at one point, but I don’t think it was in the rebuttal and I’m not even sure the jury was present.
The jury was told by a Fed. prosecutor that people get killed by these actions,there is a cloud over the VP’s office,etc.And the jury is tasked with deciding the fate of the VP’s chief of staff and White House official.Pretty heavy stuff.The jury feels this more than we know and want to be very careful and thorough regarding this huge decision they have to make.
Jacqrat @ 50
That’s why my blog is called “Last Left Turn Before Hooterville” – we’re all in Hooterville now…
Coulter?? As in s/c Ann?? Yikes
Steady Eddie @ 53
You know, you asked for a lawyer-type and here came a silly adult educator with an answer. I shall defer, sorry!
Note to the jury: We know you are trying to be thorough and complete. We know that there is a lot of evidence to wade through. We have already waded through this evidence and found the defendent guilty, guilty, guilty and, uh, guilty. No, there is no possibility that we are wrong about this.
Hurry up. The country is waiting to move to the next phase and needs an answer before Cheney bombs Iran
Sincerely,
The Reality Based Community
Jim Marcinkowski is in a very good position to speak [write] authoritatively on this issue. He’s been a staff attorney for the Oakland County, Michigan, prosecutor’s office, and he was in Valerie Plame’s CIA training class. He understands the issue from both the law’s and the CIA’s perspective. He’s a recovering Republican, too, having switched parties in disgust at Valerie’s outing.
Alicia @ 35
There you go, being all reality-based. The villains who claim there’s no crime because Valerie Plame was just a secretary or something in CIA headquarters aren’t unaware of her real status, they’re lying about it in hopes more people will believe the lie than know the truth.
Mark @ 54
Yup, totally agree with you. They must be scared shitless to not make a mistake.
winepoet @ 43
Deborah Howell as an Ombudsman – that is a big oxymoron as far as I am concerned. She doesn’t have a clue.
The Washington Post should be publishing Marcinkowski’s piece as: 1) a rebuttal/balance to Toensing’s “take” and 2) as an opportunity for them to provide their mainstream readers actual (non-propaganda) facts about why this trial is happening. Their one-sided bullsh*t should not be allowed to stand.
Hope Marcinkowski is encouraged to submit it to WaPo. Wonder if they’d print it…
Jacqrat @ 50
Probably where Howard K. Stern obtained his degree.
#62/MEC–It is true that they say these lies over and over again and it ends up a large percentage of Americans believe it. I remember some poll after the Iraq invasion that said most Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I was shocked but certainly there was a campaign where that lie was said over and over again.
emptywheel @
36
Marcy – for clarity’s sake, did you intend to say “Pretty
sickslick if you ask me”?mebbe not : )
*xyz @ 34
Me too. I’ve served on two juries and a grand jury. The GJ was fascinating, even though it took a day out of my week for three months. But in all three experiences, the differences in legal awareness, educational levels and obtuseness amongst the people on the panels was rather broad. The requests for further explanations and diagramming tools are reassuring.
Gotta work my butt off all day today, so won’t be around much longer, but can’t thank Jane, Christy and Marcy nearly enough for their insights and hard work.
Why the f*ck is the jury taking so long?
I think you guys are onto something re: jury’s state of mind. This trial is about what happens to people who go against this administration. They cannot help but feel intimidated just to be on the jury. Surely they expect that they will suffer if they find Libby guilty. They must be wrestling with this every step of the process. There is no reason to believe that they would feel immune to this intimidation, even if they have not been personally intimidated…yet.
this is so on point
claiming “there is no underlying crime charged” is the same thing as arresting someone for manslaughter and claiming that besides the manslaughter there was no underlying crime so the charges should never be raised
PWT @ 51
The request for a criminal investigation of the revelation of Valerie Plame’s employment by the CIA was made by the CIA. If she hadn’t been covert, it wouldn’t have been a crime to reveal her employment, and so the CIA would not have requested the criminal investigation. That’s logic.
The fact of the request for a criminal investigation should be official enough confirmation for any reasonable person.
I tried to spotlight this over to WAPO, but there’s noting in the “selected target” space. Won’t go, Marcy.
MEC @ 73
My point exactly.
Marcy, I was thinking you might be saving your conversation with Fitz for a post. But maybe the conversation was on double super douper background. Hush Hush on the QT, you know what I’m sayyyin here?
I’d like to help you here. Can we refer to a certain someone as “former cat owner”.
cathy @
43
Sadly, I agree with you. What the heck is wrong with this jury??? I am picturing two or three jurors (maybe just one) writing out all the reasons why Libby needs to be convicted and a couple of idiot jurors just simply not getting it.
Jane Hamsher @
5
Exactly. “Non-covert spy” is like “non-flammable gasoline” or “honest Republican”.
In the last thread Mikey had a question as to why Libby would pick Russert to make up a conversation. This has always bothered me, why Russert?
Biodun @ 70
They are performing a sacred and patriotic duty: keeping Cheney out of the country.
This is great, but why isn’t it in the Washington Post. I’m tired of just reading these smackdowns on-line and not also in the paper where the original article was printed.
Its gone midnight in Perth Australia and I have to hit the scratcher soon just, like to say what an incredable service your doing for your country,bravo!
If you can tip this domino who knows where it may lead. I now know how an addict feels.
pwrlght @ 80
EW answered this for me and I’ll paraphrase but she reminded me that the date of the Russert conversation worked the best for his lie. It was during that key week in July.
OT–but related
Sidney Blumenthal in Salon says Pakistan is implicated in the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan:
pliant, malleable, shill, obsequious . . .I dunno
It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault!
BTW, I would imagine 90% of America would say we were much better off under Clinton/Gore.
Looks like the markets finally caught on too.
Jim wrote a great piece. It should be printed somewhere in tom prendergast @ 81
I agree. It’s a great piece, but should be printed in the Post. Jim came to our bloggers’ caucus at our convention last Saturday, by the way. He was a great candidate — I hope he decides to run again, but he was very noncommittal when someone asked him about it.
raven @
40
Correct. I guess in the abstract, Libby would not be on trial unless at least some people thought she was covert. However, Libby is ONLY being prosecuted for perjury (Grand Jury). Whether Plame was covert or not has nothing to do with him lying. Even if she was not covert, he could still be prosecuted for perjury.
cbl @ 87
Goes to Murray Waas’ article about the NSA leak. They never thought the press would get subpoena’d and testify.
old gold @ 80
LOL.
Except he got back yesterday. Didn’t you notice the sudden, unexpected cold shiver going up your spine yesterday afternoon?
Jane S. @ 81
Thanks!
pwrlght @ 79
Because having watched Russert on TV time after time, he had discovered Russert to be a foolish tool who could apparently swallow anything.
thanks Pat, like everyone else, I am using every opportunity to blow off a little steam ;)
pwrlght @ 79
Mary Matalin had suggested that they use Russert because he was a tool for the administration.
pwright @ 80- Russert = Dependable Tool
karelroc @ 89
Whoo Hooo, strike a blow for the IANAL’s!
This claim is another case of not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate lie.
As Fitz explained painstakingly in his press conference when he announced the indictment, it has not been and cannot be established that there is no crime, because Libby’s lies obstructed the investigation. That’s why perjury is a crime in itself, even if no “underlying” crime is known. It prevents justice from being done.
pwrlght @ 77
This was covered in an earlier thread (sorry, can’t remember which one). It had to do with the timing of his other converstaions. The one with Russert was one of 2 or 3 that fit the time frame of when he could have “learned” about Wilson’s wife.
Pat_AlexVA @ 75
my impatience for the liveblogging of the “emptywheel” conversation with “former cat owner” is only exceeded by my impatience for the jury’s decision.
breathing in, breathing out…
dab_from_CT @ 17
I chuckled myself — I work for a consulting firm, and I’ve seen enough of those Post-It flip charts to last a lifetime. Doesn’t sound like they’re even close to finished with this to me.
ccmask @ 20
Snort! 707
Pat_AlexVA @ 90
But if he had said Judy Miller, he would have known that not only would she go to jail for him, if she did testify, she would have lied or obscured for him so I think the date was key.
SharonRB @ 100
Maybe they just ran out of paper
My contempt for Victoria Toensing will never subside. Later, pups…
I was on a drunk driving jury and after hearing both sides it was completely obvious to me that the kid was guilty. When we went to deliberate I had to use the restroom first and while I was there they elected me foreperson.
So I said that we should just go around the room and if we all agree we would be done, thinking we would all agree. Turns out we were split 3 and 3. One woman didn’t understand the concept of smelling alcohol on someone’s breath. She never heard of that before and never smelled it before. He husband was an alcoholic for years. Another woman said that the kid reminded her of her son who had ADHD and that she knows how confused they get. I reminded her that there had been no evidence that this kid had ADHD and she couldn’t use that as a reference.
So what my point is, is that everyone comes from a different background and you never know how people will think or take things.
old gold @ 79:
Cheney is back in DC, came back yesterday afternoon. He’s probably still getting over jetlag from his whirlwind world tour, mostly to the Southern Hemisphere. Antipodean: winter here, summer down there. You know what I mean?
SharonRB @ 100
Me, too. Maybe we can have a consultant suppport group ad YearlyKos or something. We can all tell each other how to feel.
silly, per Cheney rules that would be Senior DOJ Official*g*
and hey wrt jury as consultants, I’ll be fine until I hear they’ve designated Tiger Teams
Biodun @84- I’m going with the horse’s head. Thanks Sidney Blumenthal!
I like Liams phrase”if we can tip this domino”.
The visual is interesting.
Again @ 69
Yeah, but they’ve also got a 6′4 Special Prosecutor who will look out for them the rest of their lives.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 67
Nope, “sick.”
I just think it’s sick that I now get warm and fuzzies when someone takes out the post-it flipcharts!
karelroc @ 76
Not necessarily that far from being done. IIRC, they’ve used up their earlier-provided pack of Post-It posterboards, so it seems that that’s the vehicle they’re using to set forth the chronologies of events and statements as they consider each count.
Given what many, including the wonderful proprietors of this site, have written about the presentation of Fitz’s case being methodical, chronological, and evidence-based, and Libby’s defense being centered around a vaguer and much less rational “busy people forget all kinds of stuff” approach, the apparently consistent use of posterboards by the jury seems to suggest that they’re taking the rational approach, which would be a good sign.
The fact that they’ve ran out of one packet and need another says nothing one way or the other about how far along they are. Yesterday’s postings about count 3 being the toughest, and the likelihood that the jury has saved it for last, could reinforce the idea that they’re slogging along only on that count.
score! giant post-it pad
OT:
Bought Anatomy of Deceit last night at B&N
On reading the timeline …
is it just me or…
it really seems obvious that they had Plame on the shelf ready to get smeared BEFORE Pincus piece. maybe WAY before, maybe part of the knock her out of the pre-Iran way early…?
another OT re $$$:
got some unexpected $ in the mail and want to contribute to the FDL fund, what is the suffix I add to make it go to Plamehouse? .07?
thanks
Mmm. Post-its.
Mmm. Flipcharts.
Mmm. Dry erase markers. Whiteboards.
Need a cold shower now.
Heh.
Public service announcement -
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/pwo.html
Biodun @ 84– this is being confirmed by the Senate hearing right now… so far, the testimony is more than troubling.
The famed and highly touted PRT’s are not staffed, either. We have 12 of the 25 and they have never been fully staffed or operational.
disgusting. exposing of yet more lies by this administration.
Sidney’s article was well done.
urban pirate @ 86
In 2000, candidate Bush kept saying that the economy is not good. As President, he’s gone on to prove that to be true.
Ed*ard Teller @ 91
everyone knows you can make mr.potatohed do whatever you want. he is a toy.
. . . intehangable part don’t you know. mr. and mrs. skelator matlin / carville know this well.
Crazy Horse @
111
Unless he is forced out of his job due to “performance issues”.
I’d say the jury has good reason to feel concerned.
Marcinkowski certainly makes some excellent points. If your name starts either Marcy or Marci, apparently it makes you smart.
What angers me about Victoria Toensing’s many public assertions about to the CIA leak case is NOT that she sees it differently than I do, it’s that see she’s it the same way, compromises her belief in the rule of law for political gain, and has access to the megaphone to sell it to the world. Dishonest, unprincipled, cocksucker. I can say cocksucker, can’t I?
Pat_AlexVA @ 76
No idea. I’m a dog-person, not a cat-person. So I would never ask anyone if they did or didn’t have a cat. In fact, if Fitz really is a cat-person, he’s off my Christmas card list, which is full up with all the dog-lovers out there. Kobe can have his card.
(Note, I have never, ever, been organized enough to have a Christmas card list, so don’t take anything I say here sincerely.)
I was planning to get out of here when I heard what the jury was wearing but this is a sickness. I’m leaving now. I’m wearing my boots…
You go, Neil.
SharonRB @ 87
Sorry about that — my quoting got messed up with my post.
emptywheel @ 110
And Marcy, don’t forget those green IBM flow chart templates!! Bet they give you flashbacks as well!!
BTW keep doing the great job that you are doing. Thanks.
Alicia @
57
Or as Lisa would say…Hootersville.
Re: me @ 105:
According to Blumenthal in Salon, Cheney might also be recovering from the failure of his bombasts overseas, especially in Pakistan:
pwrlght @
79
I remember reading that Libby’s home phone log listed calls either to or from Russert. Libby had to come up with a reason for talking to Russert, and imho Libby decided to take advantage of his precarious situation (being questioned by the FBI and all). I also think Libby thought Russert would never dispute his answer to the FBI (fingering Russert).
Just my observation.
My personal intuitive hit is that the jury has already decided guilt on several of the charges and is going over the finer points on one or two to make sure they have reasonable doubt. Just a guess (and a big ol’ dose of hope!)
I see a great big flip chart page with gazillions of post-its all over it and lines going every which way on it, and at the bottom in great big red letters it says:
Conspiracy and under that it says in great big red
letters: Obstruction of Investigation.
A 2-fer.
pwrlght @ 79
You pick Russert for two reasons. Most importantly, it places the conversation on July 10 or 11, after Libby’s conversation with Judy Miller (July 8), and after Libby’s conversation with Robert Novak. It basically erases the conversations where you can trace Libby’s knowledge right back to Shooter.
Also, Russert is enough of an access journalist, he might take the fall for you (unlike, say, Cooper). Plus, if you said Cooper was your source, Karl Rove would be in jail.
Remember, Cathie Martin says Russert’s an easy mark.
Public service announcement for anyone in counties in South Carolina and Georgia listed in the following tornado watch update:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/wwamap…..wa=tornado watch
(This link appears to be broken when I post it)
karelroc @ 88
I’m not thinking so much about the Libby trial by itself but about all the naysayers that are saying that Libby shouldn’t be on trial in the first place because Valerie Plame was not covert. And of course, even if she was not covert, his lying is the issue.
But the right-wingers are all ‘no big deal because she was a non-covert desk jockey’…
MEC @
73
Isn’t it interesting, MEC, how the people who are STILL whining that “it hasn’t been established that she was covert” — even AFTER Wells all but admitted she was during the trial — have ignored this big fat dead and stinky beluga whale in their Kool-Aid?
Why would the CIA give a damn about this case if she WASN’T a NOC?
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 133
This line of storms has already claimed one life in Missouri.
one last comment, on the weather. This is what we’re getting slammed with this morning in my part (Palmer) of AK:
.TODAY…SUNNY. AREAS OF BLOWING DUST. HIGHS IN THE TEENS.
NORTHEAST WINDS 25 TO 50 MPH WITH LOCAL GUSTS 60 TO 85 MPH. WIND
CHILL READINGS TO 30 BELOW THIS MORNING.
I get to drive through an area where it blows even harder for about 5 miles on my way to work. I’ve seen semis picked up and swatted against the snowbank there like they were little puppies being hit by a grizzly (does that sound Alaskan enough?)…
winepoet: why do you get to live in Paris, and I’m stuck here in Bush World?
Rayne @ 115
Yup, I knew you’d feel that way Rayne. They’re right. We need a support group.
karelroc @ 77
I’ll delurk again to respond to this. Up until now every comment I have made here has been ignored, so I hope this one at least keeps to that standard and that I do not tick off any of the regulars here with what i am about to say.
Though I am as impatient as you and desire the same outcome, you have no idea what the jury is going through. Someone, maybe here, aptly described how beyond a reasonable doubt does not equate to scientific certainty.
Though when on jury duty I voted to convict a man that I was sure beyind reasonable doubt was guilty, my mind still turns back to that now seven years later. Because it wasn’t a scientific certainty. I like him less than I like Libby because he was accused of child sexual abuse. I still wonder about the infinitesmal possibility that we got it wrong, despite how deliberate and painstaking we considered everything.
I know many will say that it is obvious Liby is guilty. Maybe to you (and me) but we are WAY more informed than the jury was when they started the case. I cannot emphasize the impact of this enough. It is hard for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the average citizen who may have heard little more than sound bytes about this case before sitting on the jury. I have been following this case for years and still unclear about things. Imagine what it is like to have all this information thrown at you in a short period. Someone else mentioned that they deliberate only with their notes and their own memories to guide them. So true.
So impatient as I am, I will not criticize the jury or call them idiots for the time they are taking. The trial I was on was four witnesses…a day and half including openings and closing. We deliberated for five days. I can’t tell you how long it took just to get everyone in alignment about what we all perceived we heard the testimony to be.
Sorry for the long post….back to lurking now.
Delilah Boyd @ 128
This makes sense. If I had been Libby and making up conversations I probably would have picked Miller but he was stuck with a time frame.
repetition cancels reasoning: the operating mantra for neocons and used car salesmen.
*xyz @ 35
I would agree that this tends to point in the direction of a conviction; but it is also possible that the jury is spending a lot of time “connecting the dots” but finding they don’t really connect – one never knows.
Dog person here too. Two poodles :) They’d love to meet Jane’s kids.
I’m hoping that the jury was just one post-it short of finishing. I really feel like it will be today but now I’m not so sure.
Hi EW
I was in my friendly local Border’s last night and they had your book – four copies! – on the table of New Trade Paperback in the front of the store! (On the shelf, not the tabletop.)
—-
How many sheets are in one of those PostIt pads? I can see them running out and needing more if it’s 25 sheets per pad, maybe even with 50 sheets per. (My workgroup runs on PostIt notes. We use them as flags.)
From Blumenthal:
This no longer in dispute. The only people who still contest this are Bush and especially Cheney. All the neocon “intellectuals,” led by Francis Fukuyama concur with Blumenthal.
Biodun @ 130
Ha! I just finished that article, and I was thinking that although the timing of Cheney’s trip is definatly Libby Trial related, the fact that he went himself is a sign that he learned all the wrong lessons from the Plame affair. Or that people keep coming back from various junketts (even Condi is easing towards negotiating with the Iranians and Syrians) and telling Dick he’s got it all wrong. So he goes off on his own junkett, not forgetting his very own SAO spokesperson, and gets chewed out by EVERYONE.
And it would not surprise me one bit if the Pakistani Intelligence tipped off Afghani Taliban as to Cheney’s itinerary. With Mushareff’s blessings, who doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who likes to be treated like a colonial pawn.
emptywheel @ 112
it is! ;)
Sorry for correcting another poster, but shouldn’t that sentence read:
Toensing, Coulter and Ernest T. Bass, ESQ are all lawyer jokes?
I agree with some folks above who feel that the jury might have a sense of intimidation from Shooter and his minions. They probably have nightmares of him coming into the deliberation room with his Elmer Fudd suit and ladies’ shotgun.
Former Fed @ 127
Well, in that case, it isn’t even metaphorical. I really do believe those things are mother’s milk.
Honestly, there was a time when a fairly significant IBM computer was called my father’s baby in my household. I was so pissed–I thought I was finally going to get the sister my parents promised to adopt. And instead, I got a fricking computer.
That’s probably all you need to know to understand how I feel about flipcharts, huh?
Hmmm… it occurs to me that had Marcy published a version of her book in the form of a giant Post-It flip-chart, the jury just might be done by now…
Tonster @ 139
please don’t interpret silence as being ignored. i (and i’m sure others) appreciate your comments….
In the “hush hush and on the QT” remark, have not understood what “QT” stands for…if somebody was willing to enlighten me? Thanks.
Balrog-how’s your weather looking now? Thanks for the pics of the lodges last weekend.
Froggermarch @ 106, Hope there will be an FDL get together at Yearly Kos too!
Which one?
CLAMBERITE @
18
Surely public statements trivializing perjury do not reflect well on the legal profession? Perhaps a complaint to the American Bar Association as well as the state bar associations of which she is a member?
Tonster, good post.
Biodun @ 70
Because they’re doing their job correctly and conscientiously. Patience, young Jedi.
Tonster (139) — nicely done.
The jury has the fate of a man in their hands. From a 50,000 foot level, it matters not the man or the crime, only that the persons assessing him do so thoroughly and within the instructions given by the judge.
Were I to be charged and prosecuted for a crime — whether guilty in actuality or not — I would hope and pray the jury would do a thorough job of considering my case.
And given the additional weight of history bearing upon this, these particular jurists may be doing everything they can to ensure that they are acting responsibly towards the fate of not only one man but the nation whose direction may shift with this verdict. How does one finesse an earthquake, after all?
Very carefully.
edit: preview is my friend. So is spellcheck.
Pat_AlexVA @ 156
Let me leave it by saying that my “sister” was born in 1980 (or was it 1981–I never did like that bitch).
ISTM that if the jury is doing a lot of whiteboarding it is more likely to be about the obstruction count (#5) than the relatively simple Cooper count (#3). Obstruction is the count that would require the most arrow-pointing and post-it-noting (a new word for sure, that).
And, they would probably ONLY be dealing with the obstruction count if they had found at least one, but more likely two or more counts of perjury already. So, if I’m correct, it’s all good.
emptywheel @ 122
Get a giant post-it wall and fill it with the smallest post-its. Draw a dog on each.
I agree with you Tonster @141 – these jurors probably knew next to nothing about this case going in – what a nightmare of facts and dates and faces and timelines, on and on…
And even the news media have no clue – I heard some blonde newsreader on CNN Headline News this morning saying something like “The jury is still out in the case of a CIA leak” – making it sound like it’s about the CIA leaking something – grrrrrr….
Tonster 143, I think it will be very interesting to see how regular citizens that have not been following the investigation respond, after being bombarded with the complexity of the various testimonies that reflect the operational methods of their government. I know how I felt when I realized what was happening, but as you point out we are not in their shoes. Their perspective will be revealing.
QT – quiet
or, quick tan for those who remember the 60’s commercials for the orange tanner
winepoet @
44
Maybe “pot,” as in a caller of other dark kettles? For example, whenever the Post criticizes someone for getting the facts wrong or publishing misleading information?
p.s. Paris, wine, poet. I don’t know you, but I envy you.
Good day all,
Just wanted to throw out a little OT news, but this is important:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0228.html
“Chairwoman Linda Snchez today announced that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL) will meet tomorrow to vote on issuing subpoenas for certain former U.S. Attorneys who were recently fired by the Bush Administration.
If approved by the subcommittee, the subpoenas – which would be the first issued by the 110th Congress – would require Carol Lam, David Iglesias, H.E. Cummins, III, and John McKay to appear before a CAL Subcommittee hearing next week.”
Accountability, anyone?
BTW, have I thanked Marcy, Jane, Christy, Swopa, and the entire FDL community lately for absolutely fascinating reporting and analysis on the Plame investigation? No?
Well, THANKS! It is nothing short of historic.
selise @
153
And others have echoed your sentiments, without necessarily referring to your post. Hang in there . . .
Tonster @ 140
Good points. Thanks, Tonster.
emptywheel @ 159
Well at least that bitch didn’t borrow your shoes without asking, read your diary and tell everybody about its contents, or beat you up if you narc’d on her.
for a diversion, Lance Mannion has some amusing things to say about Tweety’s obsession with Hillary:
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/
emptywheel @ 140
But we’d have to choose a facilitator. That could get ugly.
Rayne @ 171
Ah, I forget that you knew my sister.
Thanks for the theories on Russert – they make a great deal of sense.
mulligatawny @
154
on the QT = quiet and secretly, according to one dictionary I just consulted
Irving is cracking upstairs.
About the note about third charge? Could it be that the jury really didn’t have a question for the judge? Maybe they are simply telling us they are half way through their work, verdict next week.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 176
Kinda like the DL – ‘down low’…
Tonster @ 141: Great post. I agree with you that even though we want to know a verdict soon, we shouldn’t try to guess what the jury is doing or question why it’s taking them days to decide. The notion that “they’re dragging it out for attention” seems rather absurd to me. I can imagine that being on this jury is stressful and exhausting. If you convict on any charges, you are labeling the man a felon for life, and he’ll likely go to prison. It’s an awesome responsibility to be on a jury, and certainly on this high-profile case that goes to the heart of what our government has done. We should respect that they should take all the time they need to feel they come to a just decision on every charge.
BTW, don’t assume that just because people don’t respond to your posts here, they are ignored. Because comments & responses aren’t nested on this system, a lot of times it’s better to take in information without posting a response. People are likely reading your comments, but only respond when you say something that is new/funny/sparks their interest or ire for some reason. Keep hanging around!
emptywheel @ 172
I am more than willing to let you have mine; then you, too, will truly come to know the meaning of the word, “bitch”.
Obviously I should make an appointment with my therapist. I wonder if we could use sticky notes during my consult?
selise @ 153
oh dear oh dear. this callous behavior will not do.
YOO HOO! over here, dear! *fluffs up pillow*
thanks selise. good catch.
a good blog’s work is never done…. ;->
By the way, IMHO, Victoria Toensing is in no way, shape, or form, good enough to be equated with the marvelous Natasha. ;o)
It’s worthwhile to go back to this oldy-but-goody, courtesy of Mark Kleiman:
http://www.samefacts.com/archi…..ge_act.php
The CIA referral of this matter to the Department of Justice was not necessarily limited to the IIPA. Libby’s awareness of his obligation to safeguard classified information (legally and as a condition of his employment by the Government) was very much in evidence in the trial.
Given the lying and stonewalling of the investigation that occurred, it might have been difficult to bring an Espionage Act prosecution, but there were ample grounds for a criminal investigation, and whether or not the underlying crime will ultimately be charged there is no doubt that there has been a serious breach of national security through the disclosure of classified information “to persons not entitled to receive it.” Given how lavishly publicized the CIA’s referral was, it was pretty foolish under the circumstances for Mr Libby to lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury.
On the other hand, Mr Libby is a high-powered Washington lawyer — maybe he’s been thinking all along that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will give him a sympathetic hearing on the alleged “immateriality” of his lies. Otherwise it’s still a bit of a mystery why he didn’t try to purge himself of his problem by correcting the story he told the FBI in front of the grand jury.
emptywheel @ 140
Count me in!
Office supplies…mmmmmm….
Fitz might be a dog lover but settled on a cat because he worked all hours and thought a cat needed less attention.
this maybe covered in previous thread, but need to know ASAP here – peace & calm at stake in the household.
Please, SOMEONE! Did EW remember the powercord today?!?!?! *gasp*
LS @
132
twenty-seven 8 x 10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one — Arlo
Tonster @
141
This one wasn’t ignored. Excellent points.
Alicia @ 166
that takes me back! and it was ORANGE.
France is well-represented at FDL: winepoet, who lives in Paris; Monsieur le Prof, who lives in La Rochelle, on the west coast of France (both expat Americans); and punaise, a Frenchman (who is now a US citizen), who lives in Berkeley.
There might be others. Please delurk, if only briefly.
Delurking to say hey and give my thanks for the excellent trial coverage. Also, I just bought “the book” via Amazon from the FDL link. Does FDL get a few pennies for that?
egregious @ 183
Office supplies…mmmmmm….
Don’t you just love it when the Quill catalog or the Staples catalog arrives in the mail??
Or better yet, Levenger…I know TRex will share that opinion with me. Mmm. Fountain pens.
Terry Olson @
155
Snowing real hard. This place is gonna shut down.
With all you computer wizards hanging around waiting for “The Word,” could someone cob together a little scorebox like display for the top of the FDL homepage that says “Jury out XX days XX hours XX minutes XXseconds,” “ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! Jury coming out in XX minutes XX seconds,” “Jury announces GUILTY/NOTGUILTY!!!! Hallelujah!! Oh, S***!!!!” and highlight the right mode with the right info? That way we all could check in and get out and back to doing taxes, updating picture files, writing to people we haven’t spoken to in years, buying new underwear and sox, not writing that report we need to have done by this evening … you know, the important stuff.
Just a thought.
Keep up the good work…love yah all!!
egregious @ 185
I’ll join
emptywheel @ 131
Thanks, I always figured he wouldn’t pick Novak because of the Rove connection. As much as Wells tried to slime Rove in opening statements Libby knows that Bush holds his pardon and Rove runs Bush.
Can Congress force Libby/Cheney to come to a hearing to investigate the outing of Plame?? What consequence if Libby convicted of lying about his role in outing??
Is Jury IN Jeans??? Sounds like they have a ways to go??What do you lawyers think??
Ed*ard Teller: I’m an East Coaster who’s actually been to Palmer. Coerced friends in Anchorage to take me to the Alaska State Fair when I visited them three or four years ago. (They thought that once their kids were teenagers, they wouldn’t have to go again. Ha.) Had a blast.
What a magnificent landscape you Alaskans enjoy. Not to mention fantastic halibut and chips in Whittier…I think it will always rank in my top 10 of memorable meals.
pwrlght @ 197
Ans you’ll notice that Wells never did follow upon that ‘Karl Rove scapegoated my Scooter’ line.
froggermarch @ 171
That would be an interesting process to watch – like “watch from afar” – would not want to be in the middle of that!!
CTTOM @ 198
Me, I’d take a change of clothes. Deliberate comfortable, then dress up for the judge and in case of photographers.
Former Fed (199) — oh, hands down I defer to emptywheel as facilitator.
I’m great at brainstorming, but I really hate facilitation.
Okay, I’ve put it off long enough, have to pry away from laptop and make phonecalls for investigation.
Maybe I can take notes on Post-its…
New thread from emptywheel, by the way: Unmasking Scooter.
Notice the pose.
It occurs to me that the post-it and charts are so that the foreman/majority can walk one or two hold-outs through all the who-told-who-what-when stuff. Hope they can convince him/her.
Rayne @ 205
Yes, doesn’t he look like a “Great Man.”
If there isn’t a verdict soon, I’m going to have to start abusing substances.
I voted for Jim Marcinkowski once; and I’d do it again.
I sure wish we had him representing us in Congress instead of Tom Delay lieutenant Mike Rogers.
winepoet @ 44
To follow Howell’s lead, and since the WaPo is a political newsrag, we may now refer to it as the “Pol-Pot”
Elliott @ 208
What did those poor substances ever do to you? ;)
Curious about the lack of response to the ‘ dark cloud over the white house,’ line in summation?
I would have thought a quick release of the last part of the Phase 2 Senate report on the political use of intelligence would immediately dispel all threats of stormy weather.
All the reporters know that.
Very cagey to hold back on that real proof of Mi6 confirmed yellowcake smuggling and true double usage value of aluminum tubes. Very smart. ‘ Rope-a-dope’.
I’ve learned all sorts of things from reading Larry Johnson’s “No Quarter” over time. Here are some things I’d like to share.
The Wikipedia entry on the cover the CIA established for Valerie P tells a lot. We know all this thanks to Cheney, Libby, Novakula and others. But there’s more impact than just the obvious impact.
The most valuable intelligence is provided by foreign nationals. Imagine that relations between Blogistan and Wingnuttia are in a state of high tension. Rumors and speculation are flying about on both sides. The Blogistan press says that Wingnuttia is part of the “Fascist Internets of Evil”, and their opposites say Blogistan is an “Atheist Cabal of Liberal Pinko Nutroots”. (Yes, this is just for fun.)
But life in Wingnuttia really is awful. It’s an authoritarian dictatorship, a police state which punishes dissent severely. It has secet courts. It has the death penalty for treason and espionage, and a history of people ‘disappearing’. The leader has recently revealed secret programs developing weapons and strategies, offensive and defensive, to make waging war on Blogistan more effective. How does the Blogistan Spy Department best set about finding out how advanced Wingnuttia’s programs are?
The possibilities are: a native Blogistanian agent, trying to penetrate the secret organizations, or a Wingnuttian who already has all the necessary clearances, but is somewhat sympathetic to Blogistan, and ethically horrified by what Wingnuttia is up to.
The sympathetic Wingnut is obviously best. But if they’re caught, they die. Blogistan offers money, cover, and an escape route in case the Wingnut Secret Police get suspicious.
Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, uncovering Brewster Jennings and Associates, makes it much harder for the CIA to convince a foreign national that providing intelligence to the CIA is something that they can do in safety. Both the potential agent and their handler now know that there are no guarantees that their cover won’t be blown for political purposes, endangering their lives and their families.
The long-term damage to the CIA’s ability to gather intelligence is enormous. Even if the insta-declassification argument holds water, those who leaked Valerie Plames identity should be ashamed of their deeds for the rest of their lives, and held in scorn.
Alicia @ 75
However, the request for investigation has not been made public and therefore, its contents are unknown. It can be inferred that by this request, she was covert but it can not be taken as a fact. I can infer that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but until said sun does in fact rise, it can not be taken as fact.
Unless you have some facts that I don’t, for now we can make no judgements as to wheter or not Mrs. Wilson was covert. Any arguments attached to such conclusions are just a wast of time.
MEC @ 61
Elliott @
208
I’m having a Martini!
P J Evans @ 211
lofl
Rayne @ 193
Don’t you just love it when the Quill catalog or the Staples catalog arrives in the mail??
Or better yet, Levenger…I know TRex will share that opinion with me. Mmm. Fountain pens.
Ooooh I never heard of Quill before.
Thanks for the idea Rayne!
I typed this as ‘ideaRayne’ which I kinda like.
Like a superhero name.
pwrlght @ 215
Cheers!
*clink*
Mark @ 54
I agree totally with your comment. The jury understands the ramifications of their decisions and wants to ensure they give due diligence to all of the evidence presented in this trial. I think they also understand the historical importance of their decisions as well.
“What the heck is wrong with this jury??? I am picturing two or three jurors (maybe just one) writing out all the reasons why Libby needs to be convicted and a couple of idiot jurors just simply not getting it.”
When I was on jury duty recently, a flipchart was an essential tool. We tallied each person’s position on the spectrum of innocence to guilt to see who needed their world view corrected toward unanimity, and then used the charts to lay out evidence and then query the holdouts about how they could maintain their idiotic positions in the face of the evidence. Finally, the nice little Churchian woman who didn’t want to vote guilty because it might lead to jail time and she didn’t trust anything the government said, and the government could have had video surveillance (of something that happened before the crime was even detected) had to admit that maybe the perp did something wrong. Guilty! Though not as guilty as the sloppy prosecution truly warranted. And subsequently sentenced to a lot more jail time than any of us thought would be fair, but juries don’t get a say in that. Dumbass should have been more careful when consorting with criminals and trying to impress them.
So I take the flipcharts as a sign that the nonclueless jurors are taking charge.
Ralphcat @ 209
Hey, fellow Michigander! I was hoping and praying for Big Jim to take Debbie Stabenow’s district away from Bush minion Mike Rogers. I have nothing good to say about Rahm Emanuel for recruiting Jim and then not giving him any funding (and the so-and-so had the nerve to complain about Howard Dean not giving all the DNC money to Rahm to misuse).
Signed, Thank goodness the lege’s gerrymandering left me in Sandy Levin’s district
To keep this from being drift: When Fitz prosecutes [fill in the blank] for leaking Plame’s identity, I hope he calls Jim Marcinkowski as a witness to talk about the importance of keeping covert things covert. I think he’d impresse the jury as a straight talker.
tonster @ 141 – please continue to come out from lurking as you see fit.