
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert — and yes, that's Marcy in the background)
Went through the metal detectors with Scooter, "the wife" and Ted Wells today. Wells told the guards that he was really tired, that this was his "second Friday with the jury." Fitz, OTOH, was rather ebullient yesterday. I imagine much of that could just be chalked up to differences in post-trial temperment, however, and not necessarily and indicator of what they think the jury is going to come back with. Could just be a case of postpartum depression.
Syd Schanberg has a good piece on the trial in the New York Observer:
Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald gets a conviction, he has established a trial record that will establish the administration’s guilt. Sprinkled throughout are the names of most of the neoconservatives who had been planning the current Iraq War ever since the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam Hussein still in power.They came out in the open in 1997 when they formed a Washington think tank of their own—the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Their first public act was a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton, calling for the swift “removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”Citing those still-undiscovered “weapons of mass destruction,” they said: “[W]e can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition … to uphold the [U.N.] sanctions …. ”Then, in 2000, just before Mr. Bush’s elevation to the White House by the Supreme Court, the PNAC war-seekers issued a lengthy manifesto calling for a major escalation of the country’s military mission. This 81-page document proposed a buildup that would make it possible for the United States to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” The report depicted these wars as “large scale” and “spread across [the] globe.”Iraq was named as a major threat.
It's easy to get lost in the details of the story and forget what it's really about. Syd reminds us well:
Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalizad.Most of these names echo throughout the Libby trial record. Besides the damning notes from Mr. Cheney, accounts of conversations between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby and Mr. Libby’s subsequent conversations with other pivotal administration officials, there is at least one document, in Mr. Cheney’s handwriting, that suggests the President had direct knowledge of the campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson.The trial and its record was always all about the unnecessary war—a war created by massive and deliberate lying about an imminent security threat that wasn’t there. That’s why the President and his men were desperate to shut Mr. Wilson up.He was the imminent threat—to their delusional empire-building.
Read the whole thing.
Also, while we're waiting, feel free to enjoy Mark Fiore's Slimy Circus by Scooter over at the SFGate. Misrememberin' is such an easy thing to do….
Related posts:
- SCOTUS Denies Valerie Plame Wilson Her Day in Court
- The Fitzgerald-Cheney Interview: What Don’t We Know That We Don’t Know?
- Cheney’s Lawyer Already Leaked the Content of Cheney’s “Privileged” Interview
- If You Believe Guantanamo Makes Us Safer, You Should Have Been Here Today
- Fitzgerald-Cheney Interview: A Comedy of Excuses





Spotlight








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

Fitz!
Madness! Fitz!
Tick tock
Marcy!
emptywheel!
MT!
oopsie. i’m so dumb.
How cool is this?
Outed CIA operative Valerie Plame is coming in from the cold to speak with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on March 17, according to an announcement e-mailed to supporters of event sponsors People For the American Way. Plame, however, won’t be bumping Richard Lewis’s usual one-on-one shtick with Olbermann on Countdown, and she certainly isn’t filling Michael Musto’s regular slot. A select group of NPR tote baggers will get to see Olbermann and Plame face off live at Manhattan’s Tishman Auditorium.
http://www.radarmagazine.com/e…..-plame.php
Moning all, just got home from dinner, what did I miss?
Jeb Bush a signatory, huh?
Even if Jeb (supposedly the “good” Bush) had ended up in the Oval Office instead of George, we’d still have the disaster known as Iraq.
is it can be verdick tiem, pleez?
So now we’ve got the “blogorazzi?”
Methinks that is a bottle of water cradled in Marcy’s arm. Hydrating for beer thirty?
Marcy – got your book in the mail yesterday!
Christy – the check is in the mail – thanks!!
Ratz!
Jane, did you ever receive the Starbucks coffee cards? I sent them c/o the media room at the Prettyman Courthouse because I couldn’t find anyone who could get them to you directly.
That 1998 letter to Clinton needs to be mentioned every time the invasion of Iraq is discussed in the media. I only see it mentioned on-line. The letter and the PNAC founding statement should be required reading for everyone.
Wilson, dat you?
Can I ask a back-question about the Grand Jury investigation?
I noted that in an article on Rove’s 5th appearance to the Grand Jury this WaPo article states:
Any idea (based upon what has come out in this trial, and the timeline of GJ witnesses) what information “surfaced since he last testified, in Oct. 2005″?
If the statement in bold is true, then would it lead credence to the theory that Fitzgerald’s target remains Cheney (and thus the subject of Sealed v Sealed?)? It appears to me that Fitzgerald made Rove think he was the likely target of indictment in order to extract some more testimony that may have further implicated Cheney.
And would someone remind me: Did Cheney appear before the GJ under oath? I’m recalling Bush and Cheney appearing together (and not under oath) but I think I’m confusing the 9-11 Commission with the Plame leak. Did Bush or Cheney testify under oath before the GJ (and if so when/how many times)? I still find the fact that Bush got an outside attorney right when the story broke very suspicious. I also find Ari Fleisher’s alarm (and rapid seeking of immunity) to be one of the biggest indicators of the real magnitude of
this casethe whole Plame leak story.This case seems to be more about removing a key Cheney defender from his future prosecution, than the end of the matter.
I still find it interesting that Joe Wilson’s ire (to put it mildly) centered on Rove. I wonder if he still sees Rove as the chief architect of his wife’s outing, or if he now sees Cheney as the Prime Mover?
Thanks for any answers!
And please, let’s not put “Emptywheel” and “Big Time” in the same sentence together again.
It would be interesting to see who all of the 25 signers of the letter to President Clinton were–and what they are doing today. Does anyone have a link?
U.S. prosecutor who led Ryan probe leaving
Losing another good one, but the Libby trial is certainly inspiring new generations of little prosecutors when they grow up. ;)
So, what’s it like to be on jury watch when you know for certain that they won’t be bringing down a verdict today?
mc @ 20
Let’s not be hasty about rules like that. For example, “Emptywheel’s new book pimp-slaps Big Time” would be perfectly appropriate.
Here are the names – we can all play “where are they now”
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Since KO is talking to Valerie Plame, can we get KO to return to the Lake for a conversation? Or better yet, how about Ms. Plame?
I can dream, can’t I?
Well I think Wee Irving is showing the strain; he’s looking aged! Good!
Fitzmas @ 22
Gezze, last night that punk Tucker and
what’s-his-facePat Buchanan were going on and on about how terrified they were of what a prosecutor could od to you. Duh.http://www.newamericancentury……ciples.htm
Marcy “Zelig” Wheeler.
Swopa @ 30
LOL
How about KO interviewing Valerie live, on FDL?
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 23
Because we DON’T know for certain.
We also serve who blog and wait.
morning, all. Any excitement today, besides Marcy, Pach & Jane getting in the middle of the paparazzi shuffle?
Wil – how did your job interview go?
IO @ 19:
A whole bunch of WH e-mails were suddenly “found,” having been “lost” during the original subpoena response from the prosecution.
In addition, Fitzgerald had finally managed to get testimony from Matt Cooper of Time.
Those two threads of evidence (the Cooper testimony and the e-mail confirmation of the details) were in contradiction to Rove’s prior GJ testimony. He asked to go back before the GJ to “clarify” his earlier testimony, thus denying us the privilege of seeing him on trial for perjury as well. (Even if his earlier testimony was an outright lie, the fact that he did come clean eventually would make it darned near impossible to prosecute the earlier perjury.)
Another signatory to the PNAC is ardent Zionist, Dov Zakheim. That’s not durogatory, it’s factual.
Israel is presently angling to extend for another ten years its “special relationship” with the United States where foreign aid is concerned. Is it OK to stop using the code word “Neocon” and replace it with the real word, “Zionist?” Can we speak of this like adults?
Tell Israel to pay back the $7 TRILLION stolen by Foreign Agent Dov Zakheim when he was the Comptroller for Rumsfeld’s DOD in the months prior to 9/11 (Rumsfeld admitted to misplacing $2.3 Trillion publicly, just one day prior to 9/11). The actual amount stolen was $7 Trillion.
Israel wants to push through a ten year commitment while their blackmailed criminals are still in charge of the budget. The pending attack on Iran is solely at Israel’s insistence.
SHUT THIS DOWN. Stop the warmongers – led by David Rockefeller and GHW Bush. Deport AIPAC and shut down the CFR. Get back the money already stolen from US Taxpayers – then we’ll talk.
Grins Scooter
Like the Cheshire Cat
As lookers on imagine
Giving him
a swift kick in the pooter.*
*of a playful sort so as not to cause injury.
Good Morning FDL,
I’m late to the party this morning.My 5 year old grandaughter needed my assistance to escape the I SPY SPOOKY MANSION. She liberated us. My comment about the jury: just musing. I believe one of the monitors wrote the jury was in a smiling( I don’t remember the exact characterization) mood coming into the courtroom yesterday or the day before. It would seem to me if they had come to a conclusion on any charges and any were guilty, I couldn’t fathom the light heartedness before the defendent. Wouldn’t you think they would be somber with guilty on their minds?
Mornin’ Pups. (Though it’s nearing sunset here.) Believe it or not, i couldn’t catch up on the morning proceedings here, because i was on a long conference call, consulting on windpower for Carlyle Group! Looks like there’s more to come. They’re investigating windpower? Interesting experience to say the least.
But i must have missed some things. Could someone please answer how it can be that Judge Walton can assure Marcy that there will be no verdict today, even though the jury doesn’t leave until 2PM EST?
LandOfTheFree @ 34
I was able to keep myself from yelling “Hurry the Fuck up, there may be a verdict”. So, pretty well I think
For those who bemoan this jury, remember that it is the last and best protector of our justice system. I would trust my client’s case with a jury far more than I ever would with a judge. I have had judges tell me my client should have pleaded guilty or that my client’s claim for damages was very weak. The juries have disagreed. Judges are familiar with the process and react too quickly. Juries are new to the process and take their duties very seriously. I try to put my case on in two days or less, with little documentary evidence, and so I am used to jury deliberations of less than a day. A 14 day case with this many exhibits will naturally encourage a bright jury to take its time and be sure they get it right. We’re not dealing with the clowns who decided they finally had their chance to invade Iraq in less than an hour after 9/11 and then delayed only so as to maximize their political advantage for two elections. Haven’t we had enough of hairtrigger decisions on important issues?
Spreading war all over the globe…what a noble cause.
What visionaries.
(When did Jeb Bush start helping run the country?)
EvilDrPuma @ 24
One could write
Thus saving Marcy the shame and indignity of sharing a sentence with Shooter. By the way Marcy, I had to live in Detroit for part of my childhood, I didn’t like it nearly as much as say…British Columbia.
Um, okay…
Looks like the same moment I got on my cell phone.
It is going to be 60 degrees here in DC today – rumor has it late yesterday afternoon the jury requested beach chairs, Hawaiian Tropic oil and access to the Prettyman roof!
It’s worth reminding everyone where this trail ends:
Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic. Note: I said “trail”. Where the trial ends remains to be seen.
Ah, nevermind. Just checked previous thread and you all beat me to it.
Yes, on the right track here.
Only thing is it wasn’t mentioned that this same PNAC document called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
They got their wish 11 months later.
“In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation,”
I always thought that meant he wasn’t a target in this Libby perjury trial, they were looking for evidendce against Libby, not Rove at that juncture.
But no one ever said he wasn’t a target of investigation, per se, just that he wasn’t the target of this part of the investigation.
The fact that Rove participated in the outing, and that he was indirectly personally associated with the Wilsons through their common church, probably made Joe a bit more bitter at Karl than the others. And JHoe probably knows Karl could have prevented all of this, but did nothing, rather he actually enabled the outers, and joined in the dogpile.
Didn’t Karl call Valerie “fair game?”
Seems to me, the fact that Turd is not in Scooter’s place right now doesn’t even suggest Karl is an innocent bystander. Iy just means that Fitz picked the Scooter piece of the puzzle to start the unravelling process, and wherever Roive ends up in that legal mosaic, only the future can tell.
But there’s no doubt, the Wilsons have every right to feel betrayed by Rove, because they literally were. And doesn’t it just make sense that if Cheney is guilty as hell, then Rove is too?
Bud Erland @
21
Here is their website, this link goes to the Letters and Statements page. They are not the slightest bit reticent about their plans.
With all this speculation as to whether or not it is a sure thing re: No Verdict today – How are the jurors dressed today? As much as I want to wait not a second longer for a verdict, it would be a shame for one to come in while emptywheel was enroute to MI. After all her (much appreciated) work, she deserves to watch it delivered live.
Pach,
i see you filling in a little bit while Steve Gilliard is having heart surgery.
Good on ya.
It’s that kind of spirit that keeps the Left Blogistan going strong.
How is the jury dressed today? Jeans? Dressed up?
raven @
28
Prosecutors can be very scary. That is why 8 of them just got the axe.
Please forgive me for importing another persons comment from the contentious “Crazy” thread, but I think this is important and worth considering:
This is a very strange jury indeed. How did they know they wouldn’t be reaching a verdict today? Who was in charge of making and distributing those t-shirts?
Just think of “Runaway Jury.” Do you think that scenario is impossible when you are dealing with extremely wealthy, powerful, and venal people who have never stopped at anything to get what they want?
Monsieur Le Prof @ 48
Is this why they treated the intelligence on such an event with benign neglect?
Nellieh @
37
IIRC, Our Correspondent also reported that the jury avoided eye contact w/Scooter.
mc @ 10
I had no idea (I sound like Condi) that Jeb! is a signee on the Pnac. What a surprise.
Wil – LOL. I managed to do the same when I had clients yesterday… it was hard to not say, “ok, let’s wrap this up so I can get my attention on other more pressing matters. (i.e. give me your money and get outta my office!)”
Monsieur Le Prof @ 48
Which may be one of the reasons for the niggling stories of prior knowledge by the Bush Baby’s Minder and/or assistance/agency by the PNAC’s friends.
EvilDrPuma @ 24
Agreed. “Emptywheel’s live-blogging of the Libby trial puts Big Time’s treachery squarely in the cross-hairs of Fitzgerald’s continuing treason investigation,” would be just fine with me.
In the Amy Goodman interview, Wes Clark said that back on or about September 20, 2001 he was told by a General in the Pentagon that the admin was going to war in Iraq. A few weeks later same guy told him that the plan he’d gotten from the SecDef was to go after 7 countries in 5 years starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and ending with Iran.
(he would not give the name of the General)
Is the jury wearing old clothes this morning? This is going to be a very long week-end for a lot of people. And I hope it is the begining of a long jail sentence for Libby and Cheney and Bush. Hell, lets just throw all 25 of those signators in prison for starting an illegal war. Fritz seems to be the only guy who cares enough, is smart enough and isn’t afraid to take on these scumbags. I sure hope the jury comes to work Monday morning wearing ties and nice new dresses for the verdit photo op. If they convict can we all chip in and send them 11 roses?
Fitzmas @ 22
Will this latest “fired” prosecutor get a subpoena?
How about we take all these fired prosecutors and turn em’into a grand jury team?
Bet they’d all take the job, quite seriously.
And get our wayward AG up in front of them first of all…
I’d buy popcorn and a snickers to sit and watch that hearing, I’d even turn on the video recorder. Our favorite bloggers could report on it from the hearing room!
Gonzales being grilled by the same qualified prosecutors he just fired?
Makes the ganglia twitch…
Lets not subpoenae them, lets empanel them!!!
LandOfTheFree @ 59
They won’t decide on the position until the end of next week, there has to be a verdict by then, I’m too broke not to work much longer
sunny—
T-shirt day was while the trial was still going on. I’m not even clear that anyone testified that day. It was mostly legal arguments.
So there could hardly have been a verdict before the prosecution and defense rested.
Vin Weber signed the PNAC letter? Hmmm. Will have some pointed questions for him if I spot him at Zona Rosa or The Wharf. Normie Coleman’s got a lake place up in our territory as well. [Vin’s garage?] Will be askin’ him some pointed questions also.
Speaking of pointed questions…Imus had a bunch of pointed questions and comments for Lieberman this morning. You can hear ‘em at the WFAN website, Instant Replay [scroll down the left column].
Lieberman did his patented faux-chastened-sincerity / I take this seriously routine.
My question: based on your pattern of stonewalling and obfuscation as chair of Homeland Security about Katrina/Gulf investigations, J-LIE, why should we believe your word means anything about the wounded in Iraq as a member of Armed Services?
After clearing the puke from your mouth listening to him, click on the Woodruff interview and cleanse your spirits. They are media heroes.
AJ Grief @ 40 : well said. We should want the jury to take all the time they need to come to a just decision. This isn’t a time to rush through the details and get it wrong.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
– Dr. Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Once arrested, will Libby be let out to appear as a witness at a future Cheney outing trial?
(he would not give the name of the General)
“Let me be Franks…”
sunny @ 55
How about an analogy — When I am working on a report, and I still have a ton of material to go thru , I am pretty sure I am not going to finish the report today.
As to their dress in jeans — Haven’t you ever gone to work and taken a change of clothes with you for going out later? Perhaps the jury has a change of clothes with them
Yeah there were just a few reports that came out showing they knew something was going to happen in August 2001, and did nothing about it.
Like when guys from the CIA warned Bush that there was going to be an attack and he said “okay now you’ve covered your ass.”
That sort of foreknowledge.
BurkeDem @
31
Forrest Gump much preferable. Wiser than any of the folks aound him. and that chocolate….
JEP @64 – the Asst USA is not being fired. He is tired! And can go make a lot more money for his little family, AND have more time for them.
It shows just how truly Fitz et al are “Public Servants.”
egregious @ 66
That’s hardly the point. The point is, someone on the jury was playing a game to see if they could “lead” the jury. Someone “lead” the jury into going along with a juvenile stunt. Notice the only person who didn’t go along is now off the jury?
From the beginning I’ve thought: If I were an oddsmaker, in any betting on an “Administration vs CIA” deathmatch, I’d be heavily favoring the CIA. I think this Admin’s hubris is coming home to roost.
Monsieur Le Prof @ 48
Or maybe, they did the unthinkable
With regards to jury attire: does it really matter? Maybe it’s because I live in NM, where I can go to the opera in jeans. Is it really hat much different in DC?
don’t know if this has been covered… but, i’ve now listened to all of libby’s GJ testimony… and now i think that libby is probably the origin of wells’ use of the phrase, “the wife”. wells may be a jerk all on his own (i have no idea)… but i wouldn’t be surprised if he picked it up from libby in their many conversations.
libby does it alot (especially the second time he testified)…. even though fitz usually says something like “the ambasador’s wife” in his question – libby answers with “the wife”.
did anyone else notice this?
here’s just one example:
what a jerk – in addition to being a lying, warmongering, ____ (i’ll leave it to the reader to fill in the blank, since i am trying to be on my best behavior for the visitors *g*).
ccmask @ 69
Follow up question to yours: will Libby be allowed to wear one of his expensive suits or prison garb when his turn comes to testify in the Cheney trial?
I have a very bad feeling about this jury after watching the “runaway jury” movie last night. If these people seem to be happy and seem to be in sync, it looks suspicious. I hope Im wrong here…Scooter might skate free here.
I wonder what would have happened to OJ with this jury in the box?
JEP @ 64
Wouldn’t that be nice? I don’t think it’s legal to constitute a jury that way, but how about as a special investigation team? They can investigate Abu and report to the Judiciary COmmittee or the House as a whole. And they’re all Republicans! Sweet!
I’ve been lurking all week, enjoying the clues, but this is my first post. I’m surprised that there’s not more speculation on this board about a hung jury. The conventional wisdom is that long deliberations lead to acquittals. I think there are two or three people in there saying acquit, and the rest are trying to use the post-it notes and flip charts to convince those two or three that it happened. They know that they have not come close to convincing them to convict, so they are going home for the weekend. I hate to be a pessimist, but perjury is such hard charge to win.
Thank goodness the Republicans are buried so deep into graft and other venalities, up Bush & Cheney, and fundamentalism or they might have the wit to draft Fitz as their candidate in ‘08………!
angie @ 62
YIKES. That is chilling.
So, I wonder if the definition of “regret” for Shooter, Rummy & Bush is that they weren’t able to conquer quite as many countries as quickly as they wanted.
I guess we should feel fortunate that they weren’t able to accomplish all of their wildest dreams.
Makes me shudder even more when I think about one of the justifications a lot of people gave for supporting Bush in 2000 was “well, he might not be the brightest guy, but he’s surrounded by brilliant people”. Wow – he was surrounded by people hell-bent on a widespread campaign of invasion and occupation. Just more proof that Bush knew exactly what he was saying when he used the phrase “this is a crusade” several times in 2001 and 2002.
JoyB @ 74
Well, I guess I was talking about the ones who WERE fired, even if this is an exception, which Icontinue to be a bit skeptical about, forgive my paranoia, but it looks more like a “velvet purge” of the justice department every day, and while some of the “departers” may have very benign explanations for their decisions, most of them openly admit they’ve been “purged.”
Wil @ 78
Yes, actually.
Tannen @ 78
Careful, I got a lot of vitriol and branded as a troll for suggesting that the other day … but I think rational, objective people can draw their own conclusions.
I thought Luskin was the one who said Rove wasn’t a target.
jess @ 82
The movie is fiction. Don’t confuse fiction with reality. Leave that to the Busheviks.
So Armitage was one of the signatories of the PNAC letter. How neutral and moderate of him. Why, he’s not a partisan gunslinger at all; just one of Colin Powell’s guys over at State with flappy lips, and who was the real leaker of Plame’s identity because he was just a careless gossip. Yep. Not a neocon at all, nosiree. Who believes this drivel? Can we request permission to start linking Armitage directly to the PNAC neocon’s machinations? Sheesh.
sunny @ 75
I think you’re jumping far beyond the available information. The “juvenile stunt” is not all that surprising for a small group of people crammed into close contact with one another in a high-stress situation. Also, it’s quite clear why the only person who didn’t go along is off the jury–it’s because she couldn’t be bothered to go along with the jury instructions either.
When waiting for important news, it’s easy to let impatience feed paranoia. That does not make it wise to go where impatient paranoia leads. None of us knows what the outcome will be, and I find it unlikely that some clue that would let us divine the verdict is hiding in plain sight.
I remember watching Runaway Jury and thinking how “Hollywood” it was … but it would be nave to think there couldn’t be tampering. What about the electricity being shut off in the courthouse? Isn’t that frontpage news?
Tannen @ 77
It may not have been such a deep conspiracy as that, a lot of folks just believe they failed to do the “thinkable.”
I might agree, except you and I know these were the smartest bad-guys in the room, and they “think” everything through obsessively, at one “tank” or another.
So maybe you are right and they “did” the unthinkable.
These days, I just don’t like to think about it.
Monsieur Le Prof @ 89
I think everyone just wants to stay on topic here. That goes for this thread too…
My biggest concern with the amount of time that this jury is taking is that every additional day makes the possibility of something that will result in a mistrial more and more likely. We are at 11 jurors. All it takes is one juror to get sick or be tampered with or do something they shouldn’t and we have a mistrial.
I really think that the Govt should have gotten their alternate named (back when they had “only been deliberating for two days”) so we’d have that one-juror cushion back. I think that Walton’s decision had more to do with not giving the defense team a reason for appeal (by siding with them in sticking with the 11). This could come back to bite “Truth” in the butt.
LandOfTheFree @86
But most of “the brilliant people” who had worked for his father would not serve 43.
A Dicky-Bird who was at Neil’s second wedding told me 1. that GWB had not been invited, and
2. that 41, being among friends, was`very clear about his unhappiness with 43.
JEP @ 87
Haven’t several of the USA’s initially just said that they were leaving for private practice?
JEP @ 96
I agree, it’s unpleasant and disturbing, but at the sametime entirely plausible and, I would argue, probable. (However I’ve been out of the country since ‘01 and have a different perspective now).
It’s necessary to go all the way however if we are to restore our moral standing in the world, however difficult it may be for all of us.
JEP@96
It doesn’t matter how “smart” you are if your basic assumptions, world view and values are wrong (and evil as well).
It’s worthwhile thinking about what a hung jury or an acquittal would mean. The latter might embolden every aspect of the administration’s aggressive stances at home and abroad.
JEP @ 64–
You know you might be on to something there. The fired prosecutors obviously aren’t going to form a grand jury (fun thought, though) but they COULD be hired by members of Congressional Committees (e.g. Judiciary) as counsel.
Senator Levin, Senator Rockefeller, Congressman Waxman, Conyers? Anyone?
Um, I thought the PNAC document was the topic of this thread? Maybe we should talk about Anna Nicole instead?
I’d like to know if the jury is avoiding eye contact with the prosecutors. My experience is that a jury will not give away their deliberations by looking at either side, until they have reached their conclusion. Then some of them might give a look or nod or smile to the winning side before announcing the verdict.
Sunny – I don’t see why the t-shirts nor the casual dress for deliberations are cause for alarm. What makes a lot more sense, if you want to analyze the jury, is to note that the appear to be jovial and getting along well with one another. Court observers don’t see discord or two distinct groups amongst the jury. They see people who appear to have taken careful notes, who want to plan things out carefully. If they had a hunch they might not finish this afternoon (and you know that there have been weird things that have kept them from deliberating – questions, request for post-it notes, juror disqualification, etc.), they probably wanted to make sure they had the afternoon off for personal reasons. It makes sense for them to ask for this early dismissal at the end of the day yesterday, when they had another question to submit (regarding the dictionary).
Christy, who is a defense lawyer, said she thinks it’s generally not a great idea to try and over-analyze the jury. She says it’s hard to get it right. Best plan is probably to sit back and try to be patient while they deliberate. I think it’s great that they’re taking their responsibility seriously and not jumping to any hasty verdicts.
Yay! Subpoenasare out there for the fired USA’s
http://www.hillnews.com/thehil…..oenas.html
Wow. Libby looks so high in that photo he can barely keep his eyes open. “Plastered” is right.
Christy I forgot to forward my email here so if you are writing me maybe a comment would reach me faster :)
kathbaird @ 84
We have discussed it, bordering on obsessively. I’ve mentioned exactly your theory (2 for acquittal being ‘walked through’ by others) myself a couple of days ago. Generally, though, we are trying to be optimistic and not borrow trouble, as my Grandma used to call it.
OT: Speaking of Big Time (and the self-indulgent fantasies thereof)…
Yeah, whatever, Dick.
Has this Isikoff commentary (at The Gaggle) on his observations of jury been posted yet? If so, my apologies. If not:
The Gaggle:
Interesting take, and pretty much in line with what Jane, EW, or Christy said yesterday. Sorry, don’t remember who it was.
egregious @ 110
Nancy Drew @
17
And it should be pointed out that, contrary to the Neo-Con propaganada, Richard Armitage WAS a signatory. Armitage SUPPORTED the invasion of IRAQ from the get go, and was NOT a carry-over from the Clinton State Department. In fact, Armitage Quit his Administration positions whenever a Democratic became President (Carter, Clinton), and returned…like a zombie, whenever a Republican came back in (Reagan, Dubya).
But the RNC and WH spinmeisters will lie about anything to retain power, won’t they!
Wil @ 108
This is great news!
Monsieur le Prof @ 104
Should we not take the PNAC back to its real origins —– right here, to “A Clean Break: A Strategic Plan for the Realm”???
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
It seems to me that is where it starts.
theExile @ 101
We also know that they will skew the ‘facts’ to justify the course of action they they wanted anyway. Plans based on incorrect information simply won’t work — like Mr. Rumsfeld’s ‘lean and mean’ army. Workin’ fine, eh?
I don’t think they can be called the smarts, just the most ruthless. Haven’t you ever been beaten by a cheater?
No
And I’m liking your other comments.
You say you’d bet on the CIA in a deathmatch… but it’s taking the CIA [retired folks speaking out], State [Wilson and others speaking out], and DOJ [recusal of one I will not name, and Comey’s appointment of Fitzgerald].
Deathmatch, maybe… and our country is horribly weakened.
EvilDrPuma @ 111
Like many obsessed persons, he assumes that everyone else’s motivation is the same as his.
maunga @ 86
It’ll never happen. Wit or not, someone who has anything like ethics would be anthema to them.
Interested Observer @ 97
Ten jurors can return a legal verdict in federal court.
Dick, the radicals are heading to Iraq, getting some urban combat experience, training in IED’s and bomb making and then heading back to Aghanistan.
After Iraq they’ll all be heading back home to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, Lebanon and the rest of the world to bring it on.
They followed Americans TO Iraq, not from Iraq.
-GSD
maunga: the “brilliant people” these Bush supporters were talking about were Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell.
Interesting tidbit you have there on how 41 feels about 43. He should be ashamed of what horrific things his son has done. He should also have known that his son was likely to do whatever Cheney & Rummy and the other PNAC folks told him to do. I don’t have much sympathy for 41, because he probably saw how this entire scenario would likely unfold long before most of us. And, it doesn’t appear he’s done anything to speak to those who have been calling the shots in the admin.
For what it’s worth, my take on the jury is that they are being methodical. The original requests for easels, flip charts, post-its, photographs all add up to creating a time line of the evidence. Possibly a time-line for each charge.
I think they are going charge by charge, laying out all the evidence for that charge, discussing it, voting, discussing, voting until they have a verdict on that charge. Then on to the next.
They probably have a good idea now of how long it’s going to take them to reach a decision on the remaining charges. If it’s taking two days per charge — not unreasonable because of the abundance of evidence to consider — they won’t be done till late next week.
Of course, I could be wrong.(tm)
JEP @ 96
Watch it!
http://911revisited.com/
Remember there are still two alternates. If necessary they can come in and then deliberations begin anew.
Ouch! From Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
“There are several public policy reasons why we don’t fire people,” she said. “Are these people being [fired] because they’re doing their jobs and they’re doing them to well? Is this an ideological purge?”
She went on to stress the importance of a judiciary branch that is separate and independent from the executive branch.
“When the executive branch is interfering in the justice system—in other countries we call that corruption,” she said. “It’s very troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent.”
are we there yet?
Interested Observer @ 19
iirc, fitz did interview the bush and cheney, but no GJ testimony. i guess that means no recording.
Tannen, JEP,
Please be careful about so many quoted quotes.
It’ll break the margins for everybody.
Thanks!
Excellent Point GSD, bumper sticker material!
LandOfTheFree @ 123
There were quite a few warhorses who would not serve. Cheney and Rumsfeld were most assuredly not 41 pals.
But otherwise…… frightening aint it!
Rap, it is the new disco.
And it is about time.
Let’s have some funk back in the house.
-GSD
So if the jury has announced ahead of time that they won’t be reaching a verdict today, does that mean that the courtroom crew can start drinking right away?
You know what I noticed about the makeup of the PNAC?
One chick.
Go figure.
thanks to DrEvilPuma’s comment: Dick Cheney’s latest bs:
Um, does someone want to tell Dick that radical factions are already battling for dominance in Iraq? The difference between our being there is that we’re in the middle of their battles, as all sides fight us as their worst enemy.
So, remind me again why you want to send more of our under-equipped soldiers with no door-to-door combat training and with only a small number of Kurdish soldiers (who don’t speak the local language) into Baghdad, all the while other foreign troops are withdrawing?
“If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance.”
Deadeye hasn’t been reading the news lately, those “radical factions” are already well ahead of Dick’s Daily Digest.
And who will Iraquis defend themselves against, each other?
Just to repeat an old talking point that should be more exhaustively developed, Iraq is a line drawn on a map, not a nation of loyal citizens. Iraq is part Persian,(the Shi’ite part) part Arab (the Sunni part) and part Turk(the Kurdish part). And even those divisions have factions within factions.
Even now, the Iraqi military recruits Cheney seems to think will stand up to defend “Iraq” are already members of local militias, and those loyalties seethe beneath their Iraqi facade, festering until they find a moment can commit violent acts of vengeance on their ancient enemies.
How about adding the word “ancient” to “radical factions,” and it might be an accurate statement.
We’re just newbies in this ancient battle, literally “babes in arms.” So just bring our children home, and stop claiming we’re the “adults”in Iraq.
froggermarch @ 136
Well if you discount the money and the power (and I know to some women that counts) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfiewitz, Perle and Rove and the rest aren’t exactly “chick magnets.”
LandofTheFree @107:
I agree it’s never a good idea to over-analyze a jury. IANAL, but as a Paralegal, I have been around juries for over 20 years, both civil and criminal, and I have never seen a stunt like the juvenile t-shirt escapade. I just looks to me like someone was attempting to get everyone “on board” to be lead by whoever suggested the shirts and then had them made, and then distributed them. Like I said, the one person not easily “lead” in now a goner. hmmm, you don’t find that suspicious?
You said: “Court observers don’t see discord or two distinct groups amongst the jury”
I’m not suggesting a mistrial. I strongly suspecting an aquittal.
Glorfindel @ 92
Exactly. To read the MSM he’s just some big, dumb nobody. I imagined him as one of those salesmen who shows up at your office, talks your ear off with gossip you could care less about and leaves the dirty jokes he’s been photocopying in the machine. You think, “What a putz!”
That is not the case. Our press is misleading the American people.
LandOfTheFree @ 124
Afterall blood is thicker than politics.
Well, it seems to be the jury has things under control. If they were deadlocked one would think they’d be sending up flairs by now.
They are going to have a nice weekend and decide on the final charge.
Scooter’s gonna have a looooong weekend.
-GSD
P.S.
Iranian cleric calls Pakistan a “terrorist state”.
Stealing a page from the book of Bush.
Wil @
25
http://www.newamericancentury……letter.htm
There’s actually a second letter with slightly different signatories…to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Armitage’s name is absent fom that one.
http://www.newamericancentury……er1998.htm
And then there is this one that calls for the invasion of Iraq after 9/11. It will let you know who are those that are “outside” the Administration (the public propaganda wing) vs. those above that were absorbed within the Administration.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
William Kristol Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann
Richard Perle is considered quite a hottie among the Apostle of Death groupies.
-GSD
GSD @ 123
That’s correct. Dick and the PNAC gang insist that Iraq must choke on a US installed Puppet Gov. whether they like it or not. All us libruls know it doesn’t make a dimes worth of difference to the stability of Iraq whether the troops come home now or in several Friedman Units. The whole thing remains a Clusterfuck either way. We just get mre dead and injuried soldiers and spend more money.
You Guys Have said it all-this is awful.
JEP @
49
Perhaps, but you know the reliability of MSM has been called into question…
Matthews told Wilson in a live interview:
“I just got off the phone with Karl Rove and he says your wife is fair game…”
I heard Matthews, but I did not hear Rove…
of course Wilsons response was elegant, in my opinion.
I want to see Fitzgerald be the next U.S. Attorney General if he can solve PlameGate.
GSD @ 145
truly The Prince of Darkness
njr
What was Wilson’s response?
RH – you’ve got mail. enjoy!
joel @
35
Remember the curious comment that Fitz made to Libby during his Grand Jury testimony…”You aren’t very big on emails, ARE YOU?”, to which Libby replied “Not in THIS Job…I used to use it.”
That’s a very odd question and equally odd response. Makes one wonder if Libby intentionally didn’t use email to avoid a paper trail…but that Fitz did, in fact, find some of it. It should also be noted that hard-drives preserve records of typed drafts of hard-copy letters. It may be that some items lay within the drives in storage that the authors thought were deleted.
In addition, did anyone notice that some of the documents submitted for evidence appear to have been dusted for fingerprints! It’s a little hard to asrgue that you didn’t “see” something when your prints are on it. Maybe these WH staffers will start wearing White Gloves!
Wil @ 100
Months ago Patrick Collins described the cost to his family of his absence on the George Ryan case. He is an assistant USAtty.
I think the “velvet purge” applies to the politically-appointed US Attorneys themselves? I’m over my head as far as the PATRIOT Act insertion that Spector allowed in last year, but I’m thinking this purge problem doesn’t apply to an assistant. Anybody know offhand?
cinnamonape @ 144
Notice how prevalent these warmongers are among the “liberal media” talking headerattis.
-GSD
Sunny @ 76, I share your concern about the behavior of the jurors.
All due respect to the jurors, but they’re going into their eighth day of deliberations on a 5 count perjury and obstruction trial. At the end of the day, the issues, while politically momentous, are not all that legally complex, not after 7 days without any meaningful questions. If the jury is assuming that they still have a ton of work to do at this point, then I don’t thnk it is out of line to ask what they’ve been doing for the past 7 (now almost 8) days. And just for comparison purposes, I believe that the Lay/Skilling jury came back with a verdict in six days. I’m not saying here that all juries are alike, but I am saying that something is starting to smell here.
Apropos of sunny’s comments, I agree. I too, have been wary of this jury since the T-shirt stunt. It does sound like there is an alpha among the group who is “leading” them. Is that so hard to believe?
My paranoid fear is that this person is beholden to the defense in some way, and therefore is trying to get all those who might be in favor of conviction toward acquittal. The fact that the jury is getting along so well suggests to me that no real hard discussions have happened yet, where differences of opinion might be drawn out. It’s a subtle game, but these kind of group dynamics can be pulled off (think team building exercises, etc.).
If tiredfed is out there, he mentioned yesterday that there was a FISA motion by Fitz on the docket, is this true?
Again, paranoia in hand, but if I were Fitz and I suspected there might be jury tampering, given my newly broad wiretapping powers thanks to USA PATRIOT, why not go to FISA and get a tap on a suspicious juror’s communications? Fitz has all the powers of the Atty Gen in regards to this investigation, so I could see him doing it. Jury tampering is a serious crime.
Sally @ 156- So do I.
JEP @ 87, and JoyB @ 74:
Re the Chicago prosecutor leaving for private practice. This is an Assistant U.S. Attorney, a long-time one (12 years?), but that is not a position one generally stays in forever – at least not with his skills. The fired prosecutors are the U.S. Attorneys in their districts. The U.S. Attorney in this district is named Fitz! – and he is this guy’s boss. Relax on this one……
Women’s intuition is phenomenal: you are beginning to worry me, ladies.
If there was a pro-defense bias and a lamblike tendency to the jury would they have been far more likely to have concluded in a day or two that Libby was innocent and called it a wrap?
-GSD
NEW THREAD
“I don’t think they can be called the smarts, just the most ruthless. Haven’t you ever been beaten by a cheater?”
I don’t mean this as a compliment, but that pnac list wasn’t just cheats and liars, there’s more than one genius listed there.
“The smartest bad-guys in the room” was what I wrote, not the smartest guys in the room. That should have clued everyone to what I really meant.
My point was, how likely is it that these obsessive book-cookers, born from the world of bean counters, really didn’t “know” what was shaping up on the terrorism event horizon?
Seems like some intellectual egoes got bruised here, I wasn’t suggesting “they” are smarter than all us liberals and progressives.
At least, we seem to agree that there’s a very serious question as to who REALLY knew what when, and suggesting they all just made one big stupid mistake goes against the very grain of their own self-declared brilliance.
Ooh! This may have already been posted, but it’s news to me…
Via thinkprogress.org, the Plame story is becoming a movie – for reals!
Plame film in the works
Warner Bros. have secured the rights to tell Joe & Valerie’s story. Zucker is co-producer. This should be great.
sunny @
55
They likely “knew” because they knew that they were still only going through an earlier count and had one or more to go, and also had the request for an early recess because of the parent-teacher conferences. So they would only start voting on the latter counts sometime Monday, at best. Jusrt as they “knew” that they wouldn’t be finished Yesterday and didn’t bring formal clothes.
[Note: The clothes DO have meaning!!! When they bring good shoes and a tote bag that might mean the are close to submitting their verdicts!]
re: 22 – the prosecutor is leaving to go with Perkins Coie, the firm that provided so much support to Lt. Swift in his Hamdan case.
A better slot for a talented litigator, IMO, than sticking with:
defending torture warrants & confessions, kidnappings and abuse;
praising in prose the naked, chained interrogations of kidnap victims; and
otherwise enaging in coverups of some of our most shameful moments by helping to “lose” evidence and using orange alert ink for briefing the perils of disclosing our national secrets that could be generated if DOJ admitted in court that other members of DOJ signed off on having people taken to places like Syria for torture.
Of course, I could be wrong.
CancerCures @ 149
i disagree.
fitz is a hero in my book… but that doesn’t qualify him as USAG. we need someone who doesn’t think that the so-called “patriot act” was a good idea.
surely we can find someone who thinks more of preserving our civil liberties? please?
JEP @
64
Even better! Appoint them to Congressional Investigatory Committees!
GSD @ 144
Separated at birth?
Uncle Fester,
Dick Armitage
JoyB @ 154 – only USAttys have to go through advice and consent, so the provision doesn’t sidestep that process for asst usas, they were never subject to Congressional approvals to begin with.
BurkeDem @ 26
Joe Wilson stops by Howie or Christy’s Saturday “Chat with a Progressive” sometimes.
Pach @46: So is that you in the black trenchcoat?
viget @ 158
This would be very easy to do by a seemingly amiable passive aggressive type. Someone who seems harmless but keeps insisting that they just don’t understand some part of the instructions and the others keep trying to help that person understand.(I.e., asking for a dictionary.) But in that case I think the goal would be to reach a hung jury without acrimony or suspicion.
Monsieur Le Prof @
73
Actually Condi was told by Cofer Black and George Tenet in July 2001 that there was a 10 out of 10 likelihood that Al Qaida would attack a “US target”. That month, at the G8 Conference in Genoa Bush and Rice insisted that the Italians encircle the Summit site with Spada Ground-To-Air Missiles because al Qaida might hijack a commercial jetliner and crash it into the summit site. They stayed offshore on the USS Enterprise with 24 hour fighter jet patrol just in case.
dratty @ 157
Like individuals, groups have personalities.
I think that this jury is very much into “process” — hence the flipcharts, masking tape and post-its. They are going to bend over backwards to not only be “fair” to each individual juror, but to the process itself.
My guess is that this jury is using something akin to the talking stick method, in which they will go around the room for as many times as necessary on each and every point until they reach consensus on that point. If done in a “civilized” manner, it can take forever, and usually does. I would also guess that the “leaders” whoever they are, are more focused in leading the process than they are in leading the others to a particular verdict.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out, but my feeling is that the more carefully they review the evidence, the better for the prosecution. One thing that could really be slowing things down is going over the transcripts of all those many hours of grand jury testimony. They don’t have access to a transcript of the actual trial, but they do have that, and there is a lot in it to sort through. And then there are all the cryptic documents which must be matched or not with the GJ testimony. All that could take hours and hours, esp if they are doing it carefully. And providing “space” for each and every member of the panel to say what they think at each point along the way.
I am guessing a verdict by the middle of next week at the earliest.
Monsieur La Prof @48
“Yes, on the right track here.
Only thing is it wasn’t mentioned that this same PNAC document called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”
They got their wish 11 months later.”
Odd that the now infamous “like a new Pearl Harbor” statement use to appear on the front page of the PNAC web site. A few months after 9/11, it was removed from easy view and now one must read the large document to find it. Apparently they overplayed their hand a bit.
Mary @ 172
Thanks, Mary!
So, basically, we should indeed discount any notion of Patrick Collins being part of a purge and take him at his very sincere and believable word. Assistants, from what I’ve read, have often left “after the second baby is born” because they finally need to make some money and have a life.
froggermarch @ 136
A female referred to a “a chick”. Go figure.
JoyB: I don’t want to break the margins so I’m not nesting … but you’re right. Pat Collins’ departure has nothing to do with the USAtty purge. Collins has just had enough of long hours and no pay. The Chicago Sun-Times gossip columnist called this move about a month ago … and everyone thought Fitzgerald was jumping ship (when Fitzgerald leaves the USAO, he most likely won’t stay in Chicago).
maunga @ 117
which came first, A Clean Break or the 1992 Draft Planning Guidance that Libby and Wolfowitz wrote?
jess @
82
Wasn’t the result of “Runaway Jury” a GUILTY VERDICT? In a civil suit with massive injury damages?
I think that the better analogy would be with “The Juror”.
http://www.fye.com/The-Juror&#…..ewprod.htm
recoveringlurker @ 160
Thanks for the clarification… Just seemed like it was another DOJ dominoe falling, and I still have a hunch this departure may still be partially attributable to the “outflow” of other prosecutors.
Seems like a good time to get out willingly, when others are being forcibly removed.
When I made up that term “velvet purge” it may have been a lttle bit forgiving, this more like a porcupine than a bolt of velvet…
froggermarch @ 136
Well, someone has to fetch the coffee.
viget @ 158
viget – I mixed up FISA and CIPA (my bad). Fitz wanted an extension to finish up declassifying activities on evidence for another 6 weeks.
about damn time that PNAC was mentioned in the media.
TRex @
110
You see what I mean, huh?
rxbus @ 173
nope.
Bionic @ 184
I thought it was Kool Aid?
viget @
159
It turned out that it was a CIPA motion issue. That was related to keeping some of the material declassified for the Court available for a longer period. That might mean: a) Fitz wants it for the use of an appeal; b) Fitz wants it available for ANOTHER TRIAL.
What this DOES MEAN IS THAT FITZ HAS NO INTENTION OF WRAPPING UP THINGS AT THE END OF THIS TRIAL!!!
HotFlash @ 122
Well, that makes me feel a little better. Thanks!
Oh, pshew, thanks TiredFed! I’m paranoid by nature, so I automatically jump to the craziest conclusions. Though it does make sense, what’s the point to the secret activities of the FISC if you’d tip off your targets by making the filings public?
Nonetheless, even a CIPA motion is interesting… why declassify more evidence unless the investigation is ongoing….hmm. Are there grand juries wholly made up of people with security clearances, or does the CIPA process need to be followed with the GJ as well?
Monsieur Le Prof @ 73
Jeebus. And little though one might want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I watched the tape of the attack on the Pentagon (can’t find a link) at least nine times but could not see an airplane.
FYI-
Mouse House Scores – Pix Fix Trix For Flix…
News Junkie optioned by mega-family values studio…hush hush on the QT.
cinnamonape@190;
“That was related to keeping some of the material declassified for the Court available for a longer period…
What this DOES MEAN IS THAT FITZ HAS NO INTENTION OF WRAPPING UP THINGS AT THE END OF THIS TRIAL!!!
Sounds right-on.
Can’t imagine any other reason he’d want to keep it declassified…
Does anyone know right offhand, just who is actually referenced or named in the material Fitz is making the motion about?
Just like to (respectfully) address a few questions that seem to have come up
Why is the jury sure there won’t be verdict today? – They may know they still have multiple counts to work through. And personally I’m very happy they are taking such care: my hope is for a verdict (guilty or not-guilty) solidly based on the evidence presented at trial, and this gives me confidence that is very likely with this jury.
Why Libby instead of Rove? Because Cheney is the ultimate target. I think Fitz is prosecuting Libby mainly to get him to roll on Cheney. That would, I think be based on Fitz’s assessment that there is not enough evidence to go after Bush, but there might be enough to get Cheney. And one way or another, it was Cheney who got this started – remember Wilson was saying he had been sent at the behest of the Vice President, and I’m sure Cheney was po’d (Probably even got call from the oval office “Dick, what the hell are you doing sending Wilson!!)
Jury Dress – I would disregard today’s dress; there was talk of parent-teacher conferences today and parents probably wouldn’t want to show up at those in jeans.
Why Libby instead of Rove?
Rove’s a better liar?
njr @
120
I don’t think that Cheney and Bush appeared TOGETHER. Both did have their PRIVATE Lawyers with them though. And both were not “sworn”. But it should be stated that one doesn’t need to be sworn in to be subject for Prosecution if one lies to a Federal Prosecutor or the FBI. Libby wasn’t sworn-in when he spoke with Agent Bond.
“Does anyone know right offhand, just who is actually referenced or named in the material Fitz is making the motion about?”
Still hoping someone’s memory holds this answer..
If we knew what information was being left declassified, it might be very revealing as to who’s still in the crosshairs of Fitz’ legal scope.
Spurious at 194: lots of people who were there did.
HotFlash @
123
Doesn’t make sense. A single holdout can prevent conviction whether the panel is 12, 11, or 10. The oddsare actually better for the prosecution if the panel is smaller since the odds of a single hold-out are diminished. A split jury results in a mistrial.
The only impact that it can have is if the removed juror (or incoming one) might be a convincing hardass. But I really doubt that juries are so malleable unless the evidence is based on a single critical element. This is a multi-element/multi-charge case.
Clearly the jury is well beyond the “Memory Defense” issue that was critical to elimination of all the charges. That Defense would have been dealt with in a single day or two…and if it were accepted acquittals on all counts would have followed quickly.
The fact that the jury is now analyzing the nuts-and-bolts of the charges really suggests that they are examining the evidence on other grounds than “Anyone that busy could forget this stuff.” Rather they are looking at whether Libby actually lied and misled. They are apparently looking at each charge and each lie…which is not necessarily the way I’d do it…because if a convincing case can be made for any given lie/charge then it’s a “guilty”.
Perhaps they are getting caught up on the possibility that some jurors believe that Libby lied on one element, but other jurors agree that he lied on a different element of the charge. This gets into a tricky thing…do the jurors have to agree on “the particular lie” or simply that he lied.
My view, after reading the jury instructions, is that they don’t have to concur on what “lie” within the “nest of deceits” to agree on a guilty verdict for THAT Count. But that may be complicating the issue, as the Foreperson must tally the votes/lie and keep jurors names straight.
Thus comparing what is going on in the jury is a bit different from our INDIVIDUAL decision-making process of concluding guilt/innocence. There may be a 7-4 split on one element…but if those 4 that dissent on that “lie” agree that Libby lied on one other element then thats an 11-0 vote that Libby lied on that Count. So the foreperson has to keep all of that straight and be absolutely certain that the jurors have all found at least one element that Libby lied.
They don’t want any screw ups.
BTW I could see this as resulting in the jurors being a bit giddy and laughing when they showed up in their street clothes yesterday. It’s like a bit of a role-playing game working through that process.
Since we all can only speculate on where the jury is coming from allow me to add my growing optimistic take. The foreman whom we are informed is highly educated would be wise to take all the time necessary to achieve due diligence and seek a slam dunk conviction on as many (if not all) counts before the jury.. This takes time and patience but worth the wait.
Fitz was smiling and Libby’s team cannot disguise their chagrin. I have considerable more confidence in Fitz and his team’s patience and caution and the jury from what we have been able to glean to date.
Better the jurors take all the time they need, maddening as it might be for we seasoned PlameGate watchers. If I were the foreman I’d summon all patience possible and go for a slam dunk unanimity in guilty verdicts on as many of the counts as possible – the jurors and justice deserve no less.
I’m just saying we seem to have a good judge, we know we have an exceptional prosecution team and what appears to a majority of jurors blessed with an abundance of patience.
Nor do I think for a nano-second that Marcy would have flown home if she thought there was even a chance they would bring in a verdict today. Jane and egregious and Pach are are eagle eyes and I have complete confidence in their eye witness watch adding observations of the players present including the press room MSM behavior.
What say you fellow Type A personality firepups?
Fitzmas @ 46
All right, that’s enough. Sequester those fuckers.
I know that east coasters dress-up more than left coasters so I understand why some of you think it’s odd and disrespectful for juror to dress casually in jeans, however, such dress habits are par for the course for jurors in the Pacific Northwest. Jurors who dress-up stick out like sore thumbs; people suspect them to be obsessive compulsive types with sticks firmly positioned in their butts.
This jury strikes me as fully cognizant of its power right now and its members have relaxed into their roles. They are independent and probably feel blessed to be in the spotlight. They are jokesters too. They chose to wear their silly Valentines Day T-shirts because they could get away with it and they knew that it would shock the rest of us. When I was trying a death-penalty case in the early nineties, the jurors wore T-shirts emblazoned with the large red tongue that the Rolling Stones use as a logo. Dare I say, that stunt certainly got my attention, not to mention my client’s.
I think they’re enjoying the moment and making us wait while they study the bigger case that wasn’t charged. I think they have decided that Libby is guilty and now they studying the state of the evidence against Cheney and Bush. They will know when it’s time. After the verdict I’m expecting them to hold a news conference at which they explain why they convicted Libby on all counts and why they believe Fitz should proceed to nail Cheney and Bush.
Keep the Faith, brothers and sisters. The Fat Lady ain’t quite ready to face prime time, so they’ve decided to rest up over the weekend and seize the world spotlight early next week. Toward the end of the week we’ll get to see them as guests on various shows calling for impeachment NOW!
sunny @
141
As I said, “Runaway Jury” was about taking a jury from an acquittal to a guilty verdict. To do that you need 100% conversion.
But the easiest place to work out an acquittal was to convert people on the memory defense issue. That would have been VERY EARLY in the deliberations. It would have eliminated ALL the counts in one fell swoop.
It’s much harder if the jury is going through all the interrelated evidence, count-by-count. Documents establish dates where the witnesses memory flags, for example. Sequence of events establishes that someone must have known about a document of fact…without “A” there can be no “B”. That’s stuff that is worked out by the materials the jurors asked for!
And if there is a single “hung juror” then the jury would likely be frustrated. They would have faced this oddball on count 1, count 2, and count 3…it would have made them unlikely to want to deal slowly and with interest in subsequent counts with this individual on the panel. All their work would be for nought.
If there was any COMMON component to acquit Libby that would have been arrived at quite early. They wouldn’t be going through each charge slowly. Instead they are finding each and every lie, judging whether Libby’s rationalization or obfuscation is believable, and voting on each element. If the total votes that he lied on these elements is such that all the jurors agree “he lied” then they move on.
That suggests to me that they have at least a couple of guilties…and if there is one acquittal then it isn’t because of a consistent holdout that has to be “converted”. In addirtion, once a holdout was converted – what’s the point?
After all, one guilty charge and Bush will likely be under the gun to pardon his #2’s “good buddy”. A pardon is as necessary for 5 counts as it is one!
Mason @ 205
Ding! ;~)
HotFlash @
142
Plus Armitage TWICE – DELIBERATELY- leaked Plame’s identity! This is counter to what Woodward and Novak suggested when they dsaid that the leak was “off the cuff”. These MSM pundits LIE in the media about what was said to them and then TESTIFY under SWORN OATH something absolutely contrary to what they say on the pages of their publications. In both cases Armitage RAISED the identity of Plame intentionally and with detail…he practically had to bludgeon Woodward over the head with the significance of Plame to the “trip”.
Eileen Joan @ 181
Yes! Michael Sneed wrote about that. Yes, doesn’t it make sense he’d make his way back to NYC?
viget @
159
Yes, it’s hard to believe. Stuff of fiction…but not real trials.
It was a CIPA request, not a FISA request.
Because FISA would not empower him to undertake a domestic wiretap. The wiretap in this case would be obtained easily from any Federal Judge if Fitzhad appropriate evidence. FISA judges wouldn’t be relevant unless it involved a foreign power.
But in any case, the filing was a CIPA filing. And that related to Fitz wanting to extend the time period for usage of certain classified documents in his investigations and trials.
What that means is that even if this jury acquits, or there is a mistrial, Fitz intends to move ahead with further actions. HE ISN’T GOING TO WRAP UP SHOP AFTER THIS TRIAL ENDS!
JoyB @ 209
Makes good sense to me – so much more geographically convenient when he gets a call from President Gore to become Attorney General in his far too long delayed occupany of the White House.
If Fitz were to continue to prosecute on this matter, who would he go after and how would he do it. Please make a conjecture!!??
On another matter, my son graduated from St. John’s Law School this year. His closest friend joined the US Atty’s office in a borough of NYC at $35K per year. He can’t pay his rent and make payments on his $150K school loans. People who stay are extremely dedicated and sooner or later have to make a few bucks. For years, these young lawyers carry the water without a lot of fun stuff. Can anyone blame them for leaving?
Sunny @ #76 In reference to T-Shirt day says “…someone on the jury was playing a game to see if they could “lead” the jury. Someone “lead” the jury into going along with a juvenile stunt. Notice the only person who didn’t go along is now off the jury?”
EvilDrPuma @ #94 responded with “…I think you’re jumping far beyond the available information. ….
When waiting for important news, it’s easy to let impatience feed paranoia. That does not make it wise to go where impatient paranoia leads. None of us knows what the outcome will be, and I find it unlikely that some clue that would let us divine the verdict is hiding in plain sight.”
LandOfTheFree @ #107 stated “Sunny – I don’t see why the t-shirts nor the casual dress for deliberations are cause for alarm. ….”
LandOfTheFree further reminded us that
“Christy, who is a defense lawyer, said she thinks it’s generally not a great idea to try and over-analyze the jury. She says it’s hard to get it right. Best plan is probably to sit back and try to be patient while they deliberate. I think it’s great that they’re taking their responsibility seriously and not jumping to any hasty verdicts.”
sunny @ 140
Sunny no matter what speculative scenario anyone comes up with, I feel confident that I can come up with a completely opposite scenario. If I am only operating at 40% that day (it happens to the very best of us), I know I can count on some other FDL member to pinch hit for me. (I even have a list in mind of who those back-ups would be.)
For example, consider this scenario:
The elected Foreman starts off with the reminder that their Instructions from the Judge are that each juror must not just go along with the majority. He further reminds them that each juror must be able to defend their own verdict.
One member of the jury points out we may even be asked during our 15 minutes of fame to explain our position on Fox TV.
A second member mentions that if we are likely to be on TV we should be wearing our finest.
A third member says he/she is poor and only has one good outfit and if it is worn to court every day there is no way it will look that good when we finally reach our verdict after a week or whatever.
A fourth member suggests we could work in sweat clothes and bring our finest to court so we could shift into them after we deliver our verdict.
A fifth member suggests that the media may try to read something into what we are wearing if we wear sweat shirts and jeans.
A sixth member says #5 you are right. So let’s give them something to think about. Why don’t we all wear valentine shirts one day to show that our hearts are in the right place and we are working together to do our very best.
A seventh member says I think that is a good idea and we should raise our hands if we agree. One member does not raise her hand but it is not noticed.
An eigth member says his younger brother has a T-Shirt shop so he could get us all the same shirts at no cost, unless someone objects. Again no one raises an objection.
A ninth member points out that this is a really big case. Even if you had 20 years of jury experience, you have never been involved with a case of this potential magnitude given that what it could ultimately lead to.
A tenth member points out that the media may not only try to read some meaning into our clothes but also our expressions. So, we should all follow the Defendent’s example and all of us always smile. No one objects, and many verbally agree.
An eleventh juror sits quitely throughout all of this and has nothing to say.
All twelve jurors, Foreman plus eleven others, are “Present and accounted for”. In order to win the prize of a pair of open toe pump Louboudains (spelling?), you have to guess who is the “Leader” that Sunny is worried about. Sorry Sunny but you can’t enter this contest, and we all hope you don’t give clues to a friend.
RE: Sunny @ 76
I’m betting that a woman on the jury bought the T-shirts for all of the jurors and distributed them in the jury room before court started. I believe that women are more likely to seize the initiative on a matter like this, which I regard as doing thoughtful things for others that others wouldn’t do for themselves. Seems to me that women are more likely to engage in apparently senseless acts of beauty to surprise and and cause joyful feelings like grandma used to do. You know, such people are the glue that hold the group together. While a male might have purchased them, I believe it’s unlikely.
I suspect someone else made a joke the day before along the lines of how cool it would be if they all wore shirts like that. People laughed and the glue person decided to do something about it. When she unveiled her purchases the next day in the jury room, several people provided the energy to go through with the prank by saying, “Let’s do it,” and the rest minus one went along.
I’m betting that they knew that their prank would be regarded as goofy but they did it anyway because it seemed like a harmless prank, and there was safety in numbers. Keeping in mind what Valentines Day symbolizes, I cannot believe that the jury’s outside-the-box behavior is a good sign for Libby.
It may have been an expression of solidarity with the Wilsons, although I doubt any of them were consciously aware of it at the time.
Okay, I know. Please help me, Dr. Frank.
Libby smile is nothing but a rictus, a gaping grimace.
Mason and rocket scientist:
Yeah, all that makes me feel better too. I just don’t think it’s accurate.
Scooter looks like the Cheshire Cat in that picture. Does he think all we can see is his grin? Curiouser and curiouser…
This information bomb is in slo-explosion mode.
Its all in the trial.
C’mon integrators: Look at the pile before you!
.
Here’s a little more diversion to while the time away until the jury returns:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pnZj-x3fdlM
EvilDrPuma @ 95
Ahh, but hiding in plain sight has been this Administrations trade mark. Didn’t Bush say it would be easier if this (country) was a dictatorship. Judges, Congress, Senators, Generals, Attorney Generals, even journalists, becoming powerless. WH all powerful. PNAC, out there, in plain sight.
spurious @ 194
They knew in July 2001.
Back in 2001 I used to get e-mail newsletters from a stock web site, tips on compaines to buy stock in & tips on stock trading. Some time in July 2001, abt the middle of the month I think, I received an unusualy long newsletter. The e-mail was all about Bin Laden. I had never heard of Bin Laden before. Guess I didn’t pay close enough attention to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Any ways, the newsletter was much longer than usual and told about Bin Laden’s wealthy, his ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the wealth Bin Laden had, the many companies he owned stock in, how the US trained him to fight Russia, & he helped us, but then he turned against us. The e-mail told abt terriorist activities they thought he was connected to and how dangerous to the US he was. It even covered chemicals, but I don’t remember which kinds, chemical, biological? It mentioned Bin Laden had toured some of the companies he owned stock in. If I remember correctly, it was a soft drink company that he had lots of stock in that he toured. I remember thinking, what if this bad Saudie put some of that poison in the soft drinks while he was touring the company and it was sold to thousand/millions of people. The e-mail scared me, that is why I remember it. After 911 happened, I rerembered it(some pun there) and also remembered that the stock trader that wrote the newsletter had said his dad worked for the Pentagon and he was touting stocking up (pun there too) on defense stocks. The newsletter also mentioned that Ashcroft was using chartered planes for safety reasons. So, now I wonder, who this stock trader is? If he knew all this,& heard it from his father that worked at the Pentagon, then other people at the Pentagon must have known it too. Funny though, after 911 there was news abt people who made money on stocks & they were investigated, but those people had shorted companies like the air lines that were involved. I don’t know what happended to them, I didn’t hear any more. If I remember correctly, the newsletter was written by Trader Mike, but after 5 1/2 years, I can’t swear by it. But they were aware in July 2001 that Bin Laden wanted to attack US soil and Ashcroft took airline precautions.