*UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it's hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn't seen. More as we know it.
It was my impression in the courtroom (and MSNBC confirms, based on courthouse sources) that there are three new separate questions, all about Count 3, the Cooper false statement charge.
At one point, I believe Walton said (and others who heard it confirm that this was their impression as well) that the jury has reached a unanimous decision regarding the fact that Libby lied.* Walton had issued some instruction, however, that they need to decide that he lied on October 14th and November 26th dates (both FBI interviews), but now says he should have used the word "or" instead of "and" — i.e., if the jury all agrees that Libby lied on either of these dates, they have reached a unanimous guilty verdict. (The indictment itself says "and.")
However, there seems to be some confusion — do they all agree on one date, or do some agree on one and not the other? Thus the defense and prosecution are arguing about language to use before they present it to the judge.
We only got 5 minutes warning about the hearing. I was standing at the door to the court when the prosecution came barelling down the hall. I pulled open the door and just stood back. In retrospect, I think they knew when they got the question that they had him.
I watched Scooter throughout the proceeding. No smiles now. He seems to have moved off into appeal land. Mrs. Libby was not in the courtroom, but was standing outside the overflow courtroom when we came out into the hall.
We won't know the contents of the questions until tomorrow, but we'll be back in the courtroom at 9:30 am. Looks like we might be getting close.
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
Wow.
FITZ!!!
Damn.
Giulty! Guilty! Guilty!
FITZ
Fitz!
Give truth back
Yes… give truth BACK!!!
Holy Balls Batman!
Time to indict Spiro.
Just Gimme Some Truth.
Nail his ass!
That’s quite an image, Jane. It’d had better make it to the final cut of the movie.
Now it’s Cheney’s turn!
Thanks Jane! I love this post!
“I pulled open the door and just stood back.” Something the defendant is thinking.
Jane, when you say “the jury has reached a unanimous decision regarding the fact that Libby lied”, do you mean that they have reached a unanimous decision that he did lie, or just that they have reached a decision on whether he lied? Thanks!
Do we dare believe?
looking good, can’t wait to hear the foreman say “Guilty”, though…
It’s like Braxton-Hicks contractions during the last week of pregnancy.
Lot’s of false alarms
Here’s hoping, Wilsons!
looseheadprop @
19
Good analogy LHP! Hopefully, Scooter’s water broke today…
Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson, sleep well tonight. Tomorrow may be a busy day.
And that goes double for Marcy and Jane. We long distance types need you top form!
pseudonymous in nc @
12
The tall man in the rumpled suit, former rugger that he is, led the pack of lawyers down the hall. He was smiling as he ran . . .
Could this really be the end? Or a new beginning, I guess.
looseheadprop @
19
Hahahahahaha!
It is worth remembering that braxton-hicks are a good indication of what is to come….
Libby is canned as in spam!
*xyz @ 16
Thankfully, it amounts to the same thing. If they’re arguing about dates, they must be unanimous as to his having lied, and disagree about the dates on which he did so. (Most probably, they’re unanimous on one date and not on the other, and want to know if that’s good enough – but that’s just speculation, and based on Walton’s response, they didn’t spell that out in the note.) And Wells is losing his argument on this point – he wants Walton to be extremely conservative in his instruction on this point, but Walton wants to push the jury to be clear that they’ve actually reached unanimity on one particular day, even if they’re *only* unanimous about that day and still disagree about the other. His main concern is that the conviction can’t be reversed on the grounds that the jury never reached a unanimous finding of fact – and that tells us the note indicated a conviction on that count.
pseudonymous in nc @
12
It was like a stampeding herd of cattle. I heard then coming behind me and just pulled open the door, it was the easiest way to get out of the way. I mean they were thundering.
When I heard what Walton said I tugged at my ear, I couldn’t believe it and came down to the media room right after we adjourned to check it with others. Marcy hadn’t heard it (that’s why you need two people here — one hears things the other doesn’t, one will get distracted at a moment when the other is paying attention, it’s happened before — we compare notes). But several others say they heard it and wrote it down.
Ah Twisted M, my friend. Don’t you just feel like an expectant first time grandparent?
Your not giving birth, but someone you love is and ll you can do is wait axiously and jump at every sign and portent.
If Scooter is found guilty, will you then believe that Balrogs ski?
*xyz @ 17
if they are asking questions about count three, it means they’ve found him guilty of count five.
I am greatly relieved, but I got twinge which told me that the verdict, when it comes, will be emotional. Thanks, Jane, glad to get the warning.
Here comes Patty Fitz!
Here comes Patty Fitz!
Right down Prettyman Lane!
Zeidie and Kathie and all his reindeer
are pulling on the reins.
Bells are ringing, children singing;
All is merry and bright.
Hang your stockings and say your prayers,
‘Cause Patty Fitz comes tonight!
Goodness. Please let there be a verdict tomorrow. I have a life to lead!
I still want Gilbert Gottlieb to play Judith Miller in the movie.
What if Raw Story or somebody puts up a headline that says Guilty! without a question mark before the verdict is in. What would that do? Could that create a mistrial?
Does anyone think that the 2 teams will be negotiating a plea tonight?
looseheadprop @
23
Seconded. All.
I take it there was nothing improper about Walton commenting on the jury having reached a verdict on some count? I was surprised to read that.
looseheadprop @ 19
Or, perhaps, we’ve just got some very extended labor pains . . . “No, don’t give me any drugs, don’t use the forceps, don’t schedule a c-section — I’m doing this the natural way, and it’s just gonna take time. Back the &%^$ off!”
Although, in fairness, my friend who talked like this in delivery gave in after 40 hours, and asked for the drugs. Kid came popping right out.
Balrog @ 29
On fire or on ice?
Ohioblue @
25
Nah, Dylan songs never end, I’m just stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.
I sure hope (Queen) Jane (Approximately) heard what she thinks she heard!
Just a WAF (wild-ass fantasy) here, but: Fitz goes outside to give his little spiel to the press after the “guilty on all counts” verdict – everybody thinks he’s done when suddenly he pulls “Sealed vs. Sealed” out of his pocket and announces the indictment of Darth Cheney and the whole WHIG on conspiracy and whatever else.
Be still my heart….
I think you may be right. And the way I understand the instruction and the charge, they only have to find one. As long as they are all unanimous on which one, they only need one false statement. That’s why each of Fitz’s counts had more than one.. There was redundancy built into each count.
You gotta love a belt and suspenders man!
Fitz!
Madness, Madness, MADNESS!
spinoza @ 34
THAT would be PERFECT
So Jane are you going into verdict mode again with your wardrobe? Or will you follow Peanut’s lead and dress as a stegosaurus?
did someone say something about dead eye dick having medical problems today…have the asspawns turned????
Peterr @ 39
That is a perfect description of my labor with my daughter. But she came popping out at 3 hours with no drugs or foreceps. That was 31 years ago, and she still does things in her own way and in her own time.
looseheadprop @ 43
And to think that some of the jury’s delay might have been their efforts to reach consensus on all of the incidents mentioned in count 3… when they only needed one.
who needs fiction when the truth is so exciting! thank you Jane. i felt like i was there.
i heart jane @ 49
he had a blood clot in his leg, treated and is back at work
Peterr @ 39
I had less than 2 hours of labor. HAd somthing called an explosive birth.Littleprop was a human cannon ball. Literally shot out of me.
You KNOW that Tom Cruise will play Fitz in the movie, and Travolta will be Wells or Jeffress.
Maybe Denzel will play judge Walton…..
Hommina, hommina, hommina…
Get ready to hear the dirty fucking hippies crow ’til the cows come home! While the wingnuts once more curse into their Schlitz and lament yet again how the sexual revolution passed them by.
Oh, and Valerie Plame’s status WAS classified, so there!
hackworth @ 36
Only if one (or more)of the jury disobeys Walton’s instructions. They’re supposed to abstain from media contact, including news sites, while reaching a decision.
Marcy, Jane, Pach,
Thank you so much for covering this trial. This is an amazing amount of work.
Reminds me to add my tiny ‘mite’ of a donation to the site and help out.
Guilty.
Let it be so. And then…onward and upward!
I am so grateful (and truly amazed) that an honest non-pandering attorney was appointed as special prosecutor. Bushco has gamed the entire system through corrupt sycophants for six years. Who chose Fitz to serve? (Ashcroft?).
I remember when he was appointed and reading the blogs who were saying all sorts of great things about Fitz being full of integrity (and grit). And it all appears to be true.
How could Bushco have EVER allowed someone of hte high calibre as Fitz to touch this case? Like it’s some sort of MAJOR miracle.
Wil @ 53
thanx *il — i am relieved!
I’m going to go home and sacrifice a goat….
*xyz @ 50
You know, You may be right. That would explain a lot
I hope Libby is found guilty. Not because of Libby. The feeling here is there are larger questions involved, than the fate of this samll time go-fur, Libby.
The draft jury instructions use the word “or” between the FBI interview dates.
The draft jury instructions use the word “and” between the two Grand Jury dates.
I’m strongly inclined to look to the draft jury instructions, rather than the indictment, as a device to predict which counts the jury is asking about.
Important note on the front page:
UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it’s hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn’t seen. More as we know it
RadRobin @ 59
They (according to their own corrupt view of the world) blew it, which is likely why the timing of the firing of 8 US attorneys is no coincidence.
Marky @ 55
i heart jane @ 61
as is Exon/Mobile/BP/et al
UPDATE: We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it’s hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn’t seen. More as we know it.
Woodhall Hollow @
26
But he wasn’t charged with violating the CAN-SPAM Act. *g*
That’s a really great paragraph Jane. As stated above, it should definitely be in the movie.
everhopeful @ 43
Let me continue that Fantasy. Libby — facing 10 years in federal lock up — makes a deal for less time by spilling ALL the beans about Cheney’s crimes. And finds important documents towit.
Oklahoma kiddo @
64
I hope he is found guilty because he is guilty.
He is guilty, isn’t he?
It ain’t shiny today, folks, but it’s new from egr blog.
All about obstacles, from court to that life beyond the court that we occasionally think about.
“…what a looooong, strange trip it’s been.”
was she stiking her pose?
looseheadprop @ 20
Wasn’t Braxton-Hicks the company Valerie Plame worked for?
Jane Hamsher @ 69
my guess is that Walton is drawing the same conclusions from the questions that everyone else is — and that is the basis of his “hypothesis”….
Hugh @ 78
That was Higgs-Boson.
Deb Moore @ 75
Yeah but soon we shall be able to cash in our chips!
Bush and Cheney are basic hoodlums. Hopefully Libby will be the key that ‘locks them up’.
Totally EPU’d from last thread:
Not to be a wet blanket, but ignore jury notes and questions, even these that sound promising. I’m sure Christy will agree, you never really know what’s on their minds till the verdict comes back.
Deep breaths every one.
Also we have not seen the actual notes.
Got EPU’d. THIS IS A SIGNAL FOR LIBBY TO PLEA BARGAIN AND TURN STATE’S EVIDENCE!
looseheadprop @ 54
When my brother was an intern in the ’70s, he was present at one of those births. Doctor dropped the baby, and my brother ended up testifying at the malpractice hearing. (I don’t actually know if it turned out to be malpractice in that trial.)
emptywheel @ 86
I absolutely heard Walton say it, so did several others (who went and asked Randall Samborn about it, who came down to the media room to clarify). Two other reporters wrote it down as well. It may have been a hypothesis, but if so he was assuming people could figure that out from knowing what the questions were, which we didn’t. He didn’t spell out that it was a hypothesis.
I do like the image of the prosecution “barreling down the hall.”
The rugby player boy in Fitz.
Balrog @ 73
I think so. But that and twenty cents won’t even but a pack of gum. ;0)
pseudonymous in nc @ 13
Tsunami time!
RadRobin @
60
James Comey, who is cut from the same cloth as Patrick Fitzgerald, was the Acting Attorney General while Ashcroft was in the hospital recuperating from surgery. He appointed Fitz and gave him plenary powers to follow the trail until it ends.
Without Comey this trial never would have happened.
mrs libby’s nose seems to be too short, maybe from an over zealous plastic surgeon. its a shame all that lying her hubby did couldn’t grow her nose a bit longer.
smapdi @ 80
Brewster-Jennings.
Pay no mind, I hit submit before I could do teh Google.
Wood Hollow at 67″
Yep. Hubris is their primary trait, and will definitely be their downfall. On everything.
Enough with the dueling labor experiences, please.
many thanx to both notta flatlander & pow wow (2 threads back) re: finding jury info here at fdl – my head is swimming from all i was able to dig up.
after a good night’s sleep am hoping to write up a condensed informative post of what i found
about the jury, due to the many wildly speculative posts of late.
based on what i’ve read so far about the types of ppl they are, (both as individuals & as a group – ie: the t-shirts), i believe they are intelligent, seriously minded, down to earth & ethical who want to cross their “T”s & dot their “I”’s while considering incarcerating someone. they know their work on this is historic. (i thought i read somewhere there is a lawyer among them. i need to substantiate that – but if true – it could explain a lot about why they are being so careful)
but in light of jane’s new post – perhaps this will be moot.
best ~
Marky @ 55
That would be like asking JC to play St John the Apostle.
Hrmph. The consequences of exposing the God Particle would be quite a bit more noticeable than those from exposing a CIA cover company.
Physics geeks, sheesh! But I’ll give you points for being geeky enough to bring it up.
Like a bunch of circling sharks …we are. Desperate for some truth and justice in regard to this bloody fucking war!
Mason at 90:
It was a miracle! We deserve to have had at least ONE miracle in this bushco mess.
LHP, no matter what happens I owe you a martini at yearly Kos!
Just another point militating against a need to find unanimity on “the date” as “the date” relates to Count 3 (or Count 2). To the best of my knowledge, all the evidence that would permit the jury to date discriminate as to which testimony was given at which FBI interview is Agent Bond’s testimony. In other words, it would be difficult for the jury to date-discriminate with regard to the false statements charges.
Not that it matters much (it any at all) – if an instruction incorrectly says that Libby MUST have repeated the same lie on multiple dates (i.e., if he changes the lie, it isn’t the same lie), that misconception is going to be corrected in any event. And Libby has been quite consistent in the general thrust of his interviews and testimony – the only non-reporter source he had was Cheney, and that source is one he had forgotten by the time of his first FBI interview.
smapdi @
80
Heh. I suppose once anything gets a little geeky, as this case has certainly been, the particle physics puns can’t be far behind.
nicely wrought, Jane. Thanks!
Educated Plaintiff @ 95
Educated Plaintiff – Please avoid writing specifically about the makeup of the jury while they are still deliberating. It is really inappropriate and ill-advised to do so. Thank you for your consideration.
Wrong Tom for Fitz. He’s too short. And never would have been in Jesuit school. How about Mr. Hanks?
Notta Flatlander @
97
The company was Brewster-Jennings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ge=printer
I will go to sleep tonight hoping that the jurors will wake up and smell the cappuccino and finally delare GUILTY 5 TIMES!
Wouldn’t it be funny if they were proceeding through the charges in order and hadn’t gotten any farther than three? LOL!
Er, not funny actually.
I honestly don’t think that Scooter can get a plea agreement. This trial is to convict him as a liar. It impeaches him from serving as a defense witness for Cheney (therefore increasing the likelihood of a Cheney indictment). You can’t very well be sitting where Fitz is sitting (looking for truth) and get it from someone who will lie to protect their superiors. Even if he would turn and give Fitz some evidence, how can anyone believe it? If he would lie to save Cheney, would he not lie to save his own skin? Frankly, I don’t think Fitz needs anything from him that he hasn’t already gotten.
Tom Hanks will play Fitz…He will need 6 inch lifts on his shoes (at least)
Marky @
55
Tom Cruise – YUCK!
Let this be the first of many decisive legal victories against this treasonous criminal administration that has brought us to the edge of perdition!
Jane Hamsher @ 69
Thanks, Jane.
It may be helpful here to look back at Marcy’s liveblog:
“Walton: I don’t want to keep the jury waiting until tomorrow. The only other issue. I’ll let you all work on that to see if you can come up with something. But I do have an issue as I was trying to come up with some language, and I know that counsel had not requested unanimity instruction regarding this count. I think it may be a problem. I had “and’ between the two dates. Govt requested that it be changed to “or”. Jury doesn’t have to find that he falsely made the statement on both dates. But is there a unanimity issue WRT this count, in light of statements made on two different dates. I don’t think the defense suggested he said soemthing different on one day and the other. We’ve got to know that the jury is saying he made a false statement on one and the same date that’s alleged in the indictment. I don’t know if there’s a unaninimity issue or not. THe issue can’t be waived. We have to know that jury reaching unanimous verdict on one of the two dates or both.
Wells: I’d ask you give us time to reflect on it [really quiet]. We need to discuss among ourselves and with the client. It’s just too important.
Walton: There’s going to be a claim of plain error if we don’t know that there’s a false statement made on a particular date.”
The italicized portion is probably the piece that led some people to think he’d indicated that the jury was unanimous on this point. But I think he’s saying something more interesting and nuanced. He points out that at Fitz’s request, he changed the ‘and’ to an ‘or’, and now he’s worried about it. Fitz wanted to make sure that they could convict if they found a lie on either of the dates, but because no unanimity instruction was given on the count, it opened the door for some jurors to choose one date, some the other, and anounce that they were unanimous without ever really agreeing, thus allowing for “a claim of plain error.” He also says that he doesn’t “know whether there’s a unanimity issue or not,” his way of indicating that this is a concern that arose mostly from his own reading of the instructions while trying to answer the jury’s question, and not directly from the jury’s note.
What’s it all mean? Tough to say. Certainly, there’s less cause for euphoria than it initially appeared. And we won’t know for sure until they release the three notes. But it looks like the and/or is Walton’s doing, not the jury’s.
Tom Cruise is way too tiny to play Fitz, just like he was way too tiny to play Lestat. Sorry, Tom, sometimes size matters. Oh, and acting ability helps, too.
God. I turn on the news and who’s on? Hillary doing a phony southern accent.
Fitz needs to be played by Liam Neeson.
Fitz= Hugh Laurie. Tom Hanks is a little too laid-back for the role, imo.
Question for the law-talking guys and gals:
Can the two sides negotiate a plea agreement at this point in the trial? And if so, can Libby be flipped at this point?
If the answer is yes, I gotta run to the store for some champagne cause Pinot Grigio isn’t going to cut tonight.
Mason @ 90
Recently, the highly principled Ashcroft has been shilling for the radio broadcasting industry. He presented a letter on their behalf in an effort to halt the merger of XM and Sirius Satellite radio companies. Both companies have been operating in the red. A merger might make one profitable enterprise. The broadcasting corps (Clearchannel-R) are afraid of the competition and want the merger effort halted. In comes Johnny Ashcroft. The eagle sores.
Hey, I don’t favor Tom Cruise as an actor, but you know that a movie about this event and trial is likely to suck, BIG TIME..
Cruise should play Libby, IMO. That smarmy smirk of Cruise would be perfect.
litigatormom @ 62
Before I verdict is reached I must say how thoroughly I have enjoyed your comments. Everyday is an LOL!
looseheadprop @
54
Peterr @ 39
looseheadprop @ 19
It’s like Braxton-Hicks contractions during the last week of pregnancy.
Lots of false alarms
Or, perhaps, we’ve just got some very extended labor pains . . . “No, don’t give me any drugs, don’t use the forceps, don’t schedule a c-section — I’m doing this the natural way, and it’s just gonna take time. Back the &%^$ off!”
Although, in fairness, my friend who talked like this in delivery gave in after 40 hours, and asked for the drugs. Kid came popping right out.
I had less than 2 hours of labor. HAd somthing called an explosive birth.Littleprop was a human cannon ball. Literally shot out of me.
Sounds like my mom. Her longest labor was three hours. She would actually go into shock, it was so fast.
For Fitz? I’d cast Kevin Spacy perhaps. Many others would work.
hackworth @ 36
If Raw Story puts up a headline saying “Guilty!”, it would likely meen Libby will be acquitted. :)
laurie9 @ 85
Please tell us that he only dropped the baby after it ricocheted off his head.
‘Cause that would be hilarious.
(Sorry, I have a sick sense of humor…)
He’s also the wrong height, but I think Matt Damon would do a good job playing Fitz. He’s got great intensity, plus the Catholic schoolboy appearance.
laurie9 @ 117
Did you ever see Jeeves & Wooster?
Sorry to go OT while everyone is excited, but Suzanne and TRex were looking for someone with Lexis/Nexus access. They are trying to figure out which newspapers Coulter’s column runs in.
We know about the Universal syndicate, but cannot pin down specific newspapers. Anyone who can help with that should contact Suzanne or TRex.
Interested Observer @ 109
Scooter’s got more to worry about than going to jail. The pardon is always a possibility.
Scooter was supposed to act as a wall between the Feds and Cheney. If he’s found guilty, he hasn’t made a very good wall, has he? Because guilty means he lied for a reason. And now we’re all going to want to know what that reason is. Whether Scooter cooperates or not, he can no longer shield Cheney from further questions.
Mason @
90
Comey: Medal of Freedom, Profile in Courage
WALK, DON’T RUN
Just got to wondering–after the verdict, will there be others from the MSM who will reveal (too late for this case) that they too were recipients of WH smears/leaks about Valerie?
Catching up after news blackout all day. This is the most exciting movie I’ve ever seen. Hoping for a happy ending. Thank you so much for being there, FDL.
Marky @
55
I don’t know about Cruise playing Fitz. From what I remember, he can’t handle the truth.
My guess as to the jury’s latest note and their three questions: “We gave Libby all fucking weekend to cut a deal. He didn’t do it. Is he out of his mind? How much clearer can we be? Do you think he’ll finally plead out if we give him one more day?”
pwrlght @ 127
Nope. I’m basing this casting ideas strictly on what I’ve seen of his work in “House”.
*xyz @ 103
xyz – i was only referring to what i have read about them here at fdl in the january blogs & in the msm. i dont have any personal info about them & if i did i would NEVER talk about it, yet alone post it on the net!
best ~
*xyz @ 104
Oh? There’s been quite a bit written about them already. And they are under orders to avoid media contamination. EP aint Toensing, can’t possibly be accused of jury tampering.
Jury analyses go on all the time – what’s ill-advised about it this time? That’s an honest question, btw – as in, “what am I missing?”
I really like Liam Neeson for Fitz – if he does an American accent (Brooklyn?) well.
Further down the list choices: Ralph Fiennes or David Duchovney.
I recommend Ron Jeremy to play GWB in the film about the Wilson’s travails.
Seriously. Think about it.
Well, this is getting a bit off topic, but I have to say that the plotting in House leaves a LOT to be desired. Every show has the same arc—BORING.
Russell Crowe should play Fitz.
Comey now has a high position with Lockheed-Martin, a corporation which is making more profit off the Iraq War than Halliburton.
Frank @134
I always knew I liked you.
RadRobin @ 59
Jim Comey appointed him.
everhopeful @ 138
Liam. Good choice.
I’d like to nominate Brian Dennehy for Cheney’s part.
Without a doubt, the best actor for Fitz is John Cusack.
95 @ 113
“a claim of Plame error” You can say that again!
litigatormom @ 62
THIS COMMENT IS FABULOUS!!!! I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING. THANK YOU LITIGATORMOM.
Who plays Libby? Sean Penn?
I feel a tremor in the Force.
Marky @ 140
I agree with your assessment of House’s plotting (though I’ve actually not watched many episodes). I just enjoy watching Hugh Laurie ;-)
laurie9 @ 135
I don’t really watch House (I worked on a show that aired at the same time on another network.) but if you get a chance to see J&W you must.
Gregory Peck coulda played Fitz, I think.
Wells is the only portrayal played by himself. No one else can fake those fake crocodile tears but him.
If I’m Fitz I craft a plea offer from the two weakest counts immediately just to background Walton, kind of a slap back at him.
Talk that behind closed doors and see if it bites, jiggle the line some more.
As for what we are seeing, the jury is simply determining not if Libby lied, it is how many times and counts he lied that is of import.
The questions are about how many charges he is guilty of by this point.
The defense tried to make it a trial about the media, to which extent it is.
Which journalist has been deemed not credible by jurors is all that remains to be seen.
Guilty on 3 or 4 of 5 counts, and two journalists deemed perjuries or not credible…
My guess- Cooper deemed not credible, the one count being questioned wrt his testimony.
Libby guilty on 3 or 4 of 5 counts.
Fitz starts working down off the heaviest of the counts and gets Libby against Rove since Karl has already worked with prosecution. Both are liars. Start playing some pong by knocking those lies back and forth.
He needs to work towards the second half, the sealed indictments. Libby needs to work towards the appeal. Scooter can burn Rove and still stay with Cheney on a narrow agreement, which could entail his most serious or hardest to appeal sentences.
Rove had no clearance whoever went his way breached procedure strongest. “Fair Game’ constitutes intent, who told that to Karl Rove? Armitage never said that in any statements we’ve seen to this point, that she was “fair game.”
Those words constitute intent from a Senior Dep’t or Executive. Cheney went to CIA, Plame introduced Wilson, Goss was probably there for Congress(Min. Intel-House). Cheney’s OVP dealt with Senate directly too, all of those could be called in. Goss as a coverup man for Bush to appoint at CIA makes the most plausible sense.
The Archives and CIA can find out when Cheney actually learned Plame’s name, he vetted her before the days Libby’s charge entails and Fitz can use that moving forward as well.
This going to get hot soon, laser beam intensity. The story unfolds and the trial expands. Thanks for having the FDL team help make America and the world part of it.
Chris Cooper as GWB – his Dumbya-type character in Silver City was priceless – wonderful actor!
As long as Cyrus Nowrasteh doesn’t get to direct it…
Mason @ 139
Can Ron Jeremy be as shifty-eyed as Dubya? Yeah, probably. ;)
Who plays Wells?
Twisted Martini @ 99
That’s so sweet of you.
everhopeful @ 156
Oklahoma kiddo @ 154
No doubt!
kathleen @ 150
excellent….mwoooooohahahahahahah!
RE all this hollywood talk. I am happy to hear that Joe and Valerie will be making some well-deserved money from this deal, but frankly, I would rather see a well produced documentary.
PS: And I still think that Joan Collins would play a purrfect judyjudyjudy.
James Spader as Libby – can’t you just see him posing and smiling in that smarmy, polite but completely disingenuous, effeminate sorta way?
Brian Cox will be the perfect Cheney. He played Hermann Goering in Nuremberg and nailed the role. He’s a top-notch professional. Check out his resume at imdb.com
This movie is gonna cost a fortune with all the A-list talent. Get a couple of names and fill in the rest with the cast of Drew Cary.
gitelle @ 149
Gatormom…may we quote your goat comment..it is the best!
RadRobin @ 60
It was Ascroft’s revenge! A wingnut maybe, but still a patriot.
the members of the MSM could be played by bobble-head dolls.
Woodhall Hollow @ 163
Paging PBS to the white courtesy phone….
You know there will be, this has huge historical implications.
laurie9 @ 116
No Tom Hanks is perfect or as close to perfect as you can get since Gary Cooper left us
pwrlght @
111
And could you imagine the unexpected laughter when he raised the issue that Libby was just as absorbed with meeting Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz as he was in National Security issues!
Personally I would prefer a drama~ not a farce!
Mason @ 166
I think Peter Boyle should reprise his role from Young Frankenstein to play Cheney.
hackworth @ 119
It’s even better/worse than that. He did this only AFTER XM/Sirius declined to hire him as legal counsel/advisor/lobbyist to make it a done deal.
Pissy little bee-itch.
Interested Observer @ 94
I once gave birth to a 93 pound tumor. (Just kidding but you can watch a TV program about someone who did later this week, that is unless its superceded by a news flash on Anna Nicole Smith.)
Saint Brigid @ 117
Deal can be cut at anytime as long as both sides want to
Badwater @ 174
good casting, since neither one is alive
Badwater @ 173
Sadly, Peter Boyle passed away recently. Brian Cox would be terrific.
Most of the notes were released the same day.
Does any legal types find it odd, that these notes will be released in the morning?? Maybe
Walton does not want to be stormed in the morning by extra media?
Woodhall Hollow @ 164
And all of the documents so convenient to find, here at FDL! Thanks again!
Glorfindel @ 170
Yes they certainly could and often are. IIRC, there are bobble-head dolls that can hold a pencil.
I like Tom Hanks as Fitz too and Samuel L. Jackson as Wells.
Wil @ 178
Brian Cox is alive. He was William Stryker in X-Men.
This jury is deliberating far too long. With so many nuanced questions coming from the jury, that could mean, more likely, that there are a few jurors who do not want to convict. Maybe I am wrong but the odds are getting worse each day.
looseheadprop @ 175
So, from the prosecution’s perspective, is there anything to be gained from a plea at this point? I am really wondering about this. If Libby is convicted, his testimony on anything in no good. But on the other hand, if he really does sing, does Fitx really need his info at this point, or is enough to eliminate him and keep plowing away..?
Adam Sandler is the obvious choice to play Bush.
While we’re discussing casting, how about Craig Bierko for Fitz? He’s got the height, and the courtroom chops, and with the range he’s shown from Max Baer to Jeffrey Coho, he would be a good choice.
I still like Billy Campbell for Fitz.
Liz Taylor for Cheney.
pwright @184- I think he was referring to Peter Boyle and Cheney.
pwrlght @ 184
sorry, Mason, I meant Boyle as Cheney
[Mod Note; Please only nest 2 or 3 quotes at a maximum. Any more may break the margins. Thank You.]
Nicholson as Cheney. Spacey or Drew Carey as Libby.
And the dead and injured Iraqi people who plays them? We have plenty of injured of American soldiers to play themselves in this film. These deaths are the direct result of this administrations lies.
I don’c care what Fitz says this trial is about the war for me.
hychka @
169
Uhh… no.
James Comey convinced Ashcroft that he had to recuse himself from anything to do with the Plame Wilson investigation. I suspect there was also some input from the CIA or the intelligence community in general.
Then Comey, as part of the administration, decided that he would not be a credible prosecutor either – or at least that it would create the appearance of a conflict – and appointed Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor for the investigation.
Libby blew it. He should have rolled on Cheney a long time ago. Fitz has no reason to offer him anything now, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread.
Remember: Fitz only played the cards that he had to play to convict Scooter, implicate Cheney, and provide us with a teaser about Bush’s involvement.
I don’t want to get too carried away right now, but I gotta say that I’m feeling good.
Oh, yeah. Mighty good.
hychka @ 169
No need to feel bad about feeling good about As*craft. He did his best to ensure there would be NO investigation, and went so far as to tell Andy Card, in my own words, “I’m delaying a subpoena on it’s way to the WH; you’ve got a couple hours to fire up the shredders before it gets there.”
Nope, As*craft is no patriot.
Woodhall Hollow @ 185
I don’t know what Pat’s strategy is, but a conviction shuts up Victoria Toensing, and that in itself justifies all this agida
That’s right, this trial happened in spite of Ashcroft. The credit goes to Comey, imo.
Victoria Toensing shut up…in your dreams
Badwater @ 174
Hump, what hump?
Dead guys that could play Cheney: Brian Keith, William Conrad, Atilla the Hun, Benny Hill, Henry VIII, Jackie Gleason, Vlad the Impaler, Burgess Meredith, Peter Boyle…
NYcounsel @ 187
Who are any of those people? Oh, and hows things in westchester?
Speaking of casting…has anyone else cast Pinky and The Brain as Bush and Cheney. (Except that Pinky IS a lovable silly?)
Fitz for sainthood. If Libby is convicted this will be a miracle in my saint book
Ren to play Scooter.
(Ren and Stimpy.)
How about if Wells plays himself?
For me, the most interesting aspect of this case is not just whether or not Libby gets nailed, but where does it lead from here? If Libby lied, there was a reason. And that reason is what needs to be explored.
I say Chrispin Glover for the role of Irving, and Kevin Costner for the Fitz, while casting Bill Cosby for Wells and Elizabeth Hurley for Marcy, Jane or Geralynn. You need to have actors who can do justice to the absurdity of this admin.s’ logic. IMHO
sponson @ 147
You may be right. Cusack has;
1. the ‘more going on than meets the eye’
2. pale Irish skin, dark hair, fit
3. casual yet commanding presense by virtue of will, wit and articulate command of language
What did Walton say to Wells about Fitz during an early sidebar? He’s the most principled prosecutors I know.
kathleen @
150
Ron Rifkin
Oklahoma kiddo @ 204
Hahahaha!
RadRobin @ 99
JGabriel @ 194
Can we agree that there was a conversation and both agreed to a conclusion? Otherwise, have it your own way. I’m feeling WAY TOO good to post further. ( I like gin even in the winter, myself!) It’s just a miracle that the BUSHIES lost from the get go on Fitz’s appointment and I’m sure we both agree on that;)!!!
This blog has gone mad…Madness
Maybe Eddie Murphy would be willing to play all 12 parts. He’s funny.
quick superficial question:
How tall/how short is Libby?
looseheadprop @ 176
Anytime, yes, but only up until the verdict is accepted by the judge. At that point, he will enter a judgment on each count based on the verdict — guilty, not guilty, or mistrial for any counts on which the jury couldn’t agree. After that, it becomes very difficult for either side to set aside that judgment and “cut a deal.” It can be done, but it isn’t as straightforward as it would be if were to happen, say, tonight — or any time before the jury hands up the completed verdict form to the judge and he accepts it.
global yokel @ 205
BINGO!
And Amen.
Madness madness madness
teedz @ 210
Ron Rifkin is perfect or Bob Balaban.
v o x p o p g i r l @ 214
short 5′6
Cusack? Doesn’t get any better.
but when Eddie doesn’t win the Oscar for ONE of his parts, he’ll storm away~!
pseudonymous in nc @ 13
Yes – I love the “barrelling down the hall” imagery. Did the whole prosecution team come barrelling down?
With regard to Cheney’s blood clot – they must have him on blood thinners but isn’t that a bit tricky when you have as many heart problems as he has? And blood clots – particularly deep vein – are very dangerous – they can end up in the heart, lung or brain which is often fatal.
Which is why I have a hard time believing that Cheney is back to business as usual.
I know that Sam Shepherd is older that Fitz, but he sure could do an academy award acting job with that MADNESS line.
Too bad Peter Sellers isn’t around anymore. He could’ve played Fitz, Libby, Dick Cheney AND Mrs. Libby.
Neil @ 212
That’s funny! I was thinking of Eddie Murphy as Wells, that is if Wells won’t play himself.
kathleen @ 220
thought so. Thanx Kathleen~
new thread
litigatormom @ 62
Excellent…Excellent
(in a Jack Palance voice!)
v o x p o p g i r l @ 214
Very very short
Interested Observer @ 109
Specific to the Plame outing, that may well be true. But there are larger “intent” issues behind this that Libby may have evidence on.
Libby was tasked to build and defend the case for war. That is the rat’s nest that really requires ratting out.
Pushing the uranium from Niger forgeries, faulty aluminum sleeves analysis, the phantom pre-911 meetings in Prague between Al-Q and Iraqi intelligence, the reliance on “Curveball” for the mobile bio-labs claims, the infamous 16 words, Powell’s UN speech – Libby was intimately involved in all of it.
He was on point for the WHIG’s lies to Congress, and he had “top” help.
Some believe that’s a political matter. I don’t – I believe it was also deeply criminal.
Mason @ 166 “I think Peter Boyle should reprise his role from Young Frankenstein to play Cheney.”
The late Peter Boyle will have to reprise more than his role to participate in the production.
pwrlght @ 111
Denzel is Wells.
Either Morgan Freeman, or the guy who played President Palmer in 24 is Walton.
Edward Burns is Fitz (tall, authentic Irish-y Brooklyn accent).
Dustin Hoffman is Scooter.
Mike Myers is Shooter.
Bill Pullman is Joe Wilson.
Naomi Watts is Valerie.
The guy who plays Charlotte’s husband in Sex and the City is Ari Fleischer.
Fred Thompson is Novakula.
John Goodman is Cooper.
One of the Talotians from the original Star Trek pilot, “The Menagerie,” is Karl Rove (big, bald pulsating skull and evil mind-control games).
Thanks for the info Looseheadprop, Mr. Murder and Woodhall Hollow.
SXSW @ 215
They can still deal. Libby can still get a shot at both his 2 points for acceptance of responsibilty and his 5K letter.
Some defense lawyers don’t even begin to negotiate until after the guilty verdict
I wonder what Fitz told Wells on his way out of court. Probably something along the lines of, “We’ll be at the nearest Irish pub celebrating, so if you want to talk about a plea bargain, you can reach me there.”
kathleen @ 168
Yes.
And thanks to SXSW!
And to BustedKnuckles:
Happy Happy Joy Joy!
Oklahoma kiddo @
64
I’m sure there are a few readers here who’ve had (or have) a creepy boss who asked him or her to do something unethical or vaguely illegal or in violation of some contractual obligation sometime. Maybe you did it, maybe not. Thousands of workers are put in that kind of a situation every day.
If there’s a microgram of sympathy in me for Libby, it is in thinking about that. I haven’t connected with that yet. Maybe we’ll feel some sort of sympathy for the guy after the verdict.
Read it and went back to edit. I just can’t find that microgram whenever I think about the Wilsons.
Brian Cox as Cheney would good. But I have another suggestion … Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Having seen him in ‘Capote’ and other films, I think Hoffman would be fantastic!
Mocha Dem @ 121
I rarely laugh but that got me too. A couple days back it was “I’m sitting here biting my arm off.”
Ed*ard Teller @ 225
Maybe Gregory Rush? He’s a bit hammy, IMO, but hamminess is pretty much required to portray any of these guys.
And I’m sure Rush would make a perfectly delicious Harriet Grant. And Barbara Comstock.
Ed*ard Teller @
239
Maybe you did it, maybe not. But you’d sure as hell think twice–and then think again–before you lied to the FBI about it.
stingray @ 239
I am partial to her humanly possible list.
I added a 2nd thought to my #239…
looseheadprop @ 234
I think it would be the rare judge who gave a convicted defendant a break on sentencing for accepting responsibility AFTER he forced the government to go through a lengthy trial, particularly since his defense wasn’t a technicality, but rather: I did not do it. And, yes, a 5K letter (which allows the prosecution to ask that the defendant receive a sentence below the calculated Guidelines range) is possible after a guilty verdict, but many judges are more strict on requiring the government to detail exactly how the defendant cooperated after he was found guilty, whereas a lesser showing is required preconviction. At least that’s my experience.
I’ve been mulling over who should/could play RG Joe and have decided that only William H. Macy can simulate Lieberman’s broad, rubbery, deeply insincere grin, and only Macy can summon that rich, simultaneous blend of pomposity and whininess. In earlier casting threads, we’ve considered Bill (hello, William H., may I call you Bill?) for other roles in this kabuki, but if Lieberman’s anywhere in the script (and how could he not be?) then only Bill (see query above, and hello again) can fill those shoes.
…either Ann Coulter or Karl Rove could play the sewer leak.
twolf1 @ 248
twolf1 shoots…scores!
I think Tommy Smothers would be the perfect W, but I guess he is too old now.
The ‘deer in the headlights look’, ya know?
Bette Davis would have made a good Ann Coulter…. not the pretty young Bette either. Seems like AC is withering fast—is she 50 yet?
… and the mangling of the language…
Not that there’s anything wrong with being 50, anorexic and horse-faced… but Ann can stop wearing revealing clothes 10 years ago, right now.
As for Cheney, the producers of 24 have already cast Powers Boothe in the role of evil VP transparently modeled after Dick. Say what you will about that show and its creators, but this was an inspired casting choice.
looseheadprop @ 230
5′5″
Same height as me, best as I can tell.
Tap Duncan @ 208
I was thinking Costner as Fitz, as well.
Coulter-
Mutton dressed as lamb.
Here’s the story on Senator Clinton’s “Southern accent.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..er_win.php
Cheney is choreographing his own death.
I like Steve Buscemi JudyJudyJudy.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000114/
His part in Fargo closely parallels her past 2 years, and his part in the Big Lebowski her “Just shut the f*ck up” future.
Mr.Murder @ 156
Many of us out here in the FDL Community have given thanks and praised the FDL Varsity for their outstanding work. But of all the many praises given your last sentence ranks among the classiest. You can say that again!
“Thanks for having the FDL team help make America and the world part of it.”
Anne Coulter could play litigatormom’s goat-
(sneaking past the mods)
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
For some reason that I have never figured out, legal charging documents often say “and” but mean “or.”
The judge will tell them that it means “or.” The trickier question is whether they have to agree unanimously on the date. I am not certain that they do.
out on bond @ 260
Please, don’t ever restrain yourself! Great comments like this definitely ease the pain of waiting and waiting.
Brian Cox is the poor man’s Albert Finney.
Mr. Ed should play Ann Coulter, although he’s too sweet.
Judy Judy Judy played by:
Frances de la Tour
pwrlght @ 127
THERES AN IMPOSING QUALITY AND ACTING ABILITY COMBINED IN ALEX BALDWIN WHO HAS THE HEIGHT FACTOR IN HIS FAVOR AS WELL FOR FITZ. AND I THINK BALDWIN HAD SOME PRO SPORTS IN HIS YOUNGER YEARS — NOT, SOCCER HOWEVER. AND HE’S CERTAINLY IN POSSESSION OF THE POLITICAL MIND AS EXPRESSED IN HIS WRITINGS OJN HUFFPO. just sayin’ .
Wooohah!
Mr.Murder @ 156
cgreen @
87
I had a very strong visual of this complete with a large cloud of dust and the sound of Scooby Doo spinning his wheels.
My daughters have been watching a lot of the ‘Doo lately.
Glorfindel @
141
OMG, excellent!
I hope the jury come dressed in their “Verdict Clothes.” Maybe we’ll see black tie and top hats….
J. Thomason @
183
Much as I like Tom Hanks I don’t think he’s right for the role because he’s much more noted for his light comedic roles. I think the role calls for a more serious intense person like Russell Crowe or Kevin Spacey or possibly John Cusack. All look the part and I think would do it very well.
Probably the big issue of who should play one role or another is who the entire set of lead actors is and whether they’d bounce off one another properly. You’d have to imagine different sets of actors in story-board situations to find the right set of actors.
Marky @
187
Darn, I was hoping for Danny DeVito. Haw haw haw.
gitelle @
149
Put it in the meatgrinder!
#35 “I still want Gilbert Gottlieb to play Judith Miller in the movie.”
I loved the post, but I think it’s Gilbert Godfried: http://www.gilbertgottfried.com/
#211: “How about if Wells plays himself?”
I loved this post too, but wouldn’t it be better if “How about if Wells plays with himself?”
Obviously, MeatLoaf would be perfect for Cheney.
And Bush should be played by Terry Bradshaw (with a wig).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 154
That would be my choice. And I’m sure he would have been happy to have the role to play
chatoman @ 272
LOL – now that’s funny…
dab_from_ct @
279
How about Red, White and Blue?
looseheadprop @ 177
Of course, at this point Libby would probably have to offer Fitz something seriously good to get a deal!
C’mon Scooter, you know you want to … this is the way to prove you’re an important man.
You people need to put your colorblinders on. The obvious choice to play Fitz is Samuel L. Jackson.
“MADNESS! MOTHERFUCKING MADNESS!”
chris @ 282
We have a winner!!!
When Fitzgerald was initially reading the indictments of Libby, he said that lying to the Grand Jury was like throwing sand in the umpire’s eyes: it prevented the umpire from being able to make an accurate call of the play.
Now, however, that it’s looking more like Libby’s version of events, i.e. accidental confirmation, no conspiracy, etc will not hold any water, I strongly feel that Fitzgerald is going to drop the proverbial legal hammer on the Neocons.
He’s got indictments for a lot more than just Dick Cheney. Remember, Fitzgerald is close associates with the prosecuting US Attorney for the Larry Franklin/AIPAC espionage case.
Fitzgerald knows EXACTLY what Valerie Plame was up to, what her covert status was, who her colleagues were, and he probably knows how much damage was wrought to our intelligence gathering capacity in Iran/Iraq with her exposure.
It’s gonna get much bigger, I think.
malcontent @ 284
Your lips to God’s ear
Just heard on NPR that they ARE giving him blood thinners, and that he’s back to work. But isn’t blood thinners what cause Ariel Sharon’s huge stroke(s)?
Do you think Jane could play Jane, Marcy Marcy, Pach Pach, etc.? They can’t omit the bloggers!
kathleen @ 220
No way. He walked by me several times. I’m 5.5 and he’s shorter than I am.
Merry Fitzmas, everybody, Merry Fitzmas!!! Soon it will be Fitzmas Day.
egregious @ 288
How tall were your heels?
Kevin Spacey for Fitz. Someone of Shakespearean stature. Does monumentally intelligent but inscrutable so well.
Probably too far in to the comment thread but one question for any attorney out there who has a federal crime defense practice.
The AP keeps saying that although the counts that Libby is charged with carry a max of 30 years BUT that the Fed. Sent. Guidelines call for a sentence closer to 1-3 years.
First of all, I thought the Supreme Court recently ruled that the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory but merely advisory.
Second, where does the AP get off saying that they think the sentence will be more like 1 to three years without attributing that knowledge to somebody????? Please!!!! As if Fitz was going to waste 3-4 years of his life to send someone to jail for 1-3 years!?!?!?!?
Someone please explain.
Height won’t matter in a movie. With camerawork and who knows what gimmicks, they can make anyone look taller or shorter; it’s all relative. So go for the qualities.
Patrick Fitzgerald Gets Maligned on PBS by One of the “Good Guys”
Point for AZMatt re my heel height. The Louboutins are 2.5 at the heel and 0.0 at the base, with my eyes rather to the front of the middle.
I’m gonna compromise w Marcy and call Libby 5ft 4.5 inches.
Oh, and MUST have the Fitz intensity. Volcanic and scarcely contained. Sam Shepard or Kevin Costner. A kind of sorrow along w the drive for justice. I recognize…
Sylvester Stallone as Fitz.
Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis as Cheney and Bush.
DW Dawg @ 295
Sorry, your theory won’t work. I have encountered both Fitz and Stallone. Not gonna happen.
Rocket Scientist @ 264
The gods would never accept such a sacrifice.
yeah
the jury’s just cleaning the bones right now.
pwrlght @ 283
I am sick and tired of these motherfucking snakes in this motherfucking administration!!
Dickey Weinkle @ 277
Oh, 707!!!!!!
karelroc @ 292
Although the Guidelines are now indeed advisory, the law requires the court to consider that range when deciding what would constitute a reasonable sentence. Furthermore, the Guidelines are “presumptively reasonable” in the DC Circuit (as most, if not all, others), meaning that in practice courts rarely diverge from the suggested Guidelines range. Assuming a conviction, maybe there’s good reason to divert upward given the importance of the cast of characters involved, but Walton’s caution during this process leads me to conclude he is *most likely* not going to impose a setence outside the presumptively reasonable Guidelines range, albeit probably he’ll give him a sentence at the high end of the range. FWIW.
Deb Moore @ 105
I like Tom Hanks for Fitz as far as he can be both hilarious and very serious. And the nose is similar.
You go, Jane, and thanks again to you and the team bringing this trial to us in terms most of us can understand.
I’m sorry I have no thoughts on the casting of our players. I have to admit the S.L. Jackson idea is funny, though.
I want these people hung out to dry.
Have fun this week. And remember, you are THE source for Libby trial details and intrigue.
Me, I was brought up to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And that’s what I’m still doing here. I have little faith anymore, which is sad and discouraging…
Marky @ 126
I do wish he were taller! Fitz reminded me of the movie, Good Will Hunting, only because of the math, the apparent genius, & working as a janitor.
Would someone please explain this final paragraph of the Libby article in today’s (3/5/07) NYTimes?
“The five charges against Libby carry a combined top penalty of 30 years in prison. Federal sentencing guidelines would call for a far shorter sentence — possibly one to three years — even if he were convicted of all five counts.”
What kind of penalty is the 30 years for all five counts, if not federal? There is much to be explained here, I suspect. Thanks to anyone who will do this!
Dear Jane!
Had to miss a lot of the afternoon.
Thank you beyond measure for allowing those of us who have to dip in & out of the Lake at times to catch up to speed.
Sounds as if it was a momentous afternoon to have been in the courtroom. Glad you’re there! ;->
I, as much as any true american, would love to see I.Lewis Fibby, in jail along with the rest of his posse, however, a year and a half worth of appeals and then a pardon, is what the tarot cards and my crystal ball see for the future. Nonetheless, FITZ!!!!
Lost in the casting call and the general hubbub about the latest notes is this screaming bit of silence: the jury has not to our knowledge asked for further clarification on the “reasonable doubt” language.
When on blood thinners, one must have (PT) prothrombin time/INR checked regularly to avoid exactly the fate of Arik Sharon, or the risk of clot-induced stroke. Sharon was probably over-decoagulated (INR > 4.0) and also unhealthy enough to have fragile blood vessels.
As for the Cheney person, there will likely be someone checking his clotting time every hour. . .
Anti-coags are no joke. Tightrope walk between clot and hemorrhage in one or another really important spot.
I have always thought Patrick Fitzgerald looks a bit like Tom Hanks & Tom Hanks plays serious rolls very well – remember “Saving Private Ryan” & “Philadelphia”? I think he’d be perfect.
I can’t wait for tomorrow!
BarbG @ 306
It is the difference between the statutory maximum authorized by Congress for punishment of a violation of the criminal statute and the Guidelines range for those violations. The obstruction charged here is punishable by up to 10 years; the other 4 charges are Class D felonies, punishable by up to 5 years. Add them up (which presumes a consecutive, rather than concurrent sentence — not altogether likely), and you get a max possible sentence of 30 years. However, that Congress would allow that maximium term does not make a sentence to the statutory maximum “reasonable” — and reasonableness is the Due Process touchstone. Accordingly, people should prepare themselves for Walton to impose a sentence within the Guideline range, if perhaps at the top of the range, as that sentence would come with the rebuttable presumption that it is reasonable and therefore less likely to be overturned on appeal.
It is the difference between the statutory maximum authorized by Congress for punishment of a violation of the criminal statute and the Guidelines range for those violations. The obstruction charged here is punishable by up to 10 years; the other 4 charges are Class D felonies, punishable by up to 5 years. Add them up (which presumes a consecutive, rather than concurrent sentence — not altogether likely), and you get a max possible sentence of 30 years. However, that Congress would allow those maximium terms does not make a sentence to the statutory maxima “reasonable” — and reasonableness is the Due Process touchstone. Accordingly, people should prepare themselves for Walton to impose a sentence within the Guideline range, if perhaps at the top of the range, as that sentence would come with the rebuttable presumption that it is reasonable and therefore less likely to be overturned on appeal.
I like the Matt Damon idea. he’s a very good actor.
the camera can find appropriate angles.
Gary Oldman as Libby. oh yeah. Oldman can do great character roles.
Add noir. Add lots of heavy drama. show the background to war and profit from really dangerous horrific characters.
Show Saddam’s hanging on a computer in the background.
Play Dixie Chicks in a coffee shop while getting a tall one to go.
Show wounded soldiers wheeled next to their young children.
Show hundreds of thousands of Iraquis butchered.
Show the happy clean warriers who planned it.
Show the slime in their hearts seep into their brains and out their eyes as black blood.
show it all.
Samuel L. Jackson as Fitz, Frank Whaley (in makeup) as Libby.
Scene: Grand Jury testimony
Fitz: What does justice look like?
Libby: What?
Fitz: What country you from?
Libby: What?
Fitz: What ain’t no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What?
Libby: What?
Fitz: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?
Libby: Yes!
Fitz: Then you know what I’m saying!
Libby: Yes!
Fitz: Describe what justice looks like!
Libby: What, I-?
Fitz: [leafing through proposed indictments] Say what again. SAY WHAT AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say what one more goddamn time.
Libby: She’s b-b-big…
Fitz: Go on.
Libby: She’s beautiful…
Fitz: Does she look like a bitch?
Libby: What?
[Fitz files first count of indictment]
Fitz: DOES SHE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?
Libby [in pain]: No!
Fitz: Then why you try to fuck her like a bitch, Scooter?
Libby: I didn’t.
Fitz: Yes you did. Yes you did, Scooter. You tried to fuck her. And justice don’t like to be fucked by anybody.
Okay, now I have decided that Helen Mirren should play both Jane and Valerie Plame.
Mabel’s at 114. Wow, just wow! I love your visuals.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 314
Can we find a spot for Pink singing Dear Mr. President?
Madness
Madness
Madness
Justice
Justice
Justice
egregious @
295
Russell Crowe in Gladiator had those qualities
Scooter Libby = Kato Kalin (both short, same stupid grin)…age up Kato and you will have Scooter.
It will give Kato, unemployed actor, a chance for his big role in a largely silent role.
http://images.google.com/imgre…..n&sa=G
get real: Edward Norton to play Fitz
I love Helen Mirren — onstage and off (I met her in London long enough for a conversation in 1994) — but she’s too old (60) to play Jane, or Valerie for that matter. I still vote for Jane to play Jane, after she writes the screenplay and sells it for big bucks. No one can match Jane.
Mason @
139
How about Tom Cruise to play GWB? They’re both pretty frat boys without a lick of sense.
Bob in HI
Boston1775 @
259
M-m-m-m. Just like Wild Bill, Reagan’s CIA chief, who died conveniently during the Iran-Contra hearings just before he was to be subpoenaed to testify under oath?
Bob in HI
Garbo @
286
I’m on bloodthinners every day for the rest of my life, because I had a “valve job” and have artificial heart valves, so I can speak to this issue somewhat. Blood thinners have to be monitored periodically to check one’s clotting time. Too much is bad, but too little is also bad. Too much is bad because it can lead to internal bleeding. Too little is bad because blood clots can form that obstruct small blood vessels in the brain.
Blood thinners are also problematic because they interact with a lot of different foods and medications.
Blood thinners would only cause Sharon’s stroke if (a) Sharon had over-medicated or under-medicated, or (b) Sharon’s diet changed significantly. So please don’t oversimplify.
Blood thinners can kill; its basically the same stuff as rat poison. Like many things in life (e.g. alcohol, tobacco), when used in moderation, its OK and maybe even good. When used in excess, it kills.
Bob in HI
Said Fitz:
Says Samir:
chris @ 315
Completely ROTFLMAO!!!! NOW I can go to work!!
AZ Matt @ 290
I stood directly in front of Libby in the line into the Barrett Prettyman courthouse and looked directly into his eyes. I did not have to look up or down and I am 5′6. He looked scared, I had read that as arrogance before looking into his eyes!
Being the fall guy does not look like fun and games.
[Mod Note; Please only nest 2 or 3 quotes at a maximum. Any more may break the margins. Thank You.]