Verdict!

dang!

Give truth back!

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Please let them convict Libby today and knock the keystone out of this cover-up. Let the collapse of this administration begin here and now.

Sigh….

Wow, Walton surely did take the discussion on a wild ride yesterday, clearly implying there had been some finding of fact, which then had to get sorted out and walked back.

Okay, I bet a sick day on this being verdict day. Come on, jury, let’s be done with this!

Have to go back and read yesterday’s liveblogging about the questions now…

Oh no, another day of not getting any work done. Maybe I could get a job as “comment refresher”.

Those questions don’t scream of a finding of fact to me either. Sigh.

Guess we will just have to wait, again.

are we there yet? :)

The questions lead me to believe that the jury instructions were not well written…Am I wrong?

uh oh.

msnbc reported the jourors clothes are nice today …… may we have the guilty verdict soon

Marcy,

Can the judge answer Q 1 and 2?
Would he not be reluctant to do so as he stated previously?

Thanks for all that Firedoglake has done! Yes, I still think a Pulizer is deserved for the best coverage of a very important event in our country’s history. This is the best example, so far, of what the internet can do in a democracy.

I heard MSNBC is reporting that the jury is dressed up today.

They’re lost in the tall grass on Cooper. And I can see why.

It is clear that Libby did know that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA.

But Libby told the FBI that he didn’t know, and that as proof, when Cooper asked him about it he told him he didn’t know.

Cooper says that the conversation didn’t go like that.

So the charge is that Libby lied to the FBI about lying to Cooper. It’s very recursive. Very hard to get a grip on. If I were on that jury, and some people were unsure of this one but sure of all the rest, I’d suggest that we acquit here while convicting on all the rest.

Ummm… what got sent to the jury?

Wow – that was kind of lame-o.

This jury can’t ask a clear question to save their lives.

I think I might have to respectfully dissent from EW’s previous post: I see little reason to be confident that this jury has decided anything. At a certain point, a lack of clear writing sometimes represents a lack of clear thinking. It’s hard for me to see that they understand much of what is going on, and they’ve been deliberating for a looooong damn time.

I truly hope I’m wrong. I just don’t see why these questions look good for the prosecution. For all we know, they haven’t yet considered count 5.

“Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?”

Here’s where the finding of fact comes in.

The prosecution, in point of fact, is alleging both things, but that’s plainly not what the jury’s asking. Rather, it wants to know whether it need only determine that Libby’s account of his conversation was willfully misleading, or whether it needs to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of Valerie Plame and lied about it. To secure a conviction, they need only determine the former, not the latter.

So why are they asking this? (And here’s where a finding of fact starts to enter the debate.) Obviously, its easier to find the former than the latter – and its seems probable that they have been unable to achieve consensus on the latter point. But if they’re bothering to ask as a means of advancing their deliberations, it must mean that consensus has either been achieved or seems imminently achievable on the former point – that is, that the jury is convinced he lied about the conversation, but can’t agree on just how much he knew by that date. So Walton will tell them they need only determine the former, and this impasse, at least, will be resolved.

beth meacham @ 18

They’re lost in the tall grass on Cooper. And I can see why.

It is clear that Libby did know that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA.

But Libby told the FBI that he didn’t know, and that as proof, when Cooper asked him about it he told him he didn’t know.

Cooper says that the conversation didn’t go like that.

So the charge is that Libby lied to the FBI about lying to Cooper. It’s very recursive. Very hard to get a grip on. If I were on that jury, and some people were unsure of this one but sure of all the rest, I’d suggest that we acquit here while convicting on all the rest.

I wonder if one reason that Fitz included Count 3 in the indictment was no so much that he needed a conviction on that particular count (the Russert ones are much clearer) but to force the jury to really grapple with Libby’s pattern of lying. His lying “style” so to speak.

I think that I agree with emptywheel in her earlier front page post. Why would the jury ask such speciifc questions about charge 3 and not about any of the other charges? I think that they have already decided on guilty verdicts for those charges and they are struggling to resolve this one. It’s guilty on four out of five.

Folks:

On the question of jury’s dress–yes, MSNBC says they’re dressed up. But remember, they may well have expected they’d be dragged into the court room to get an instruction on this question. Last time they were brought into the court room, they were reluctant about it because they were wearing their grungies.

urban pirate @ 11

are we there yet? :)

20 more minutes!

annx @ 10

Those questions don’t scream of a finding of fact to me either. Sigh.

Guess we will just have to wait, again.

I think I’m with you here. It seems by the call of their question(s) that the undertone really is ” Is the prosecution alleging x? Because if they are then we’re not buying.”

I hear that the jury is well dressed today, so there may be a verdict.

I would think that Bush would not pardon Libby until the appeal process is over or it is January, 2009 whichever is earlier, because if Bush pardons Libby then he is admitting that his administration is totally corrupt

95 @ 22

“Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?”

Here’s where the finding of fact comes in.

The prosecution, in point of fact, is alleging both things, but that’s plainly not what the jury’s asking. Rather, it wants to know whether it need only determine that Libby’s account of his conversation was willfully misleading, or whether it needs to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of Valerie Plame and lied about it. To secure a conviction, they need only determine the former, not the latter.

So why are they asking this? (And here’s where a finding of fact starts to enter the debate.) Obviously, its easier to find the former than the latter – and its seems probable that they have been unable to achieve consensus on the latter point. But if they’re bothering to ask as a means of advancing their deliberations, it must mean that consensus has either been achieved or seems imminently achievable on the former point – that is, that the jury is convinced he lied about the conversation, but can’t agree on just how much he knew by that date. So Walton will tell them they need only determine the former, and this impasse, at least, will be resolved.

Thanks – this is very cogently stated.

upper left edge @ 16

Thanks for all that Firedoglake has done! Yes, I still think a Pulizer is deserved for the best coverage of a very important event in our country’s history. This is the best example, so far, of what the internet can do in a democracy.

I second that emotion!

PatVa @
7

Okay, I bet a sick day on this being verdict day. Come on, jury, let’s be done with this!

We should have consulted Spiderpaws – a couple of threads back (this am) she said on wednesday the planets etc will be best for a good verdict hard to appeal.

Sorry, I’m posting this comment in the third straight thread. I’m curious as to whether anyone agrees with me:

Marcy’s earlier thread on the jury notes seems to show a pattern of creating questions and then continuing to work on other things (and perhaps coming up with OTHER questions). While the latest questions (dealing with Count 3) are next sequentially after the “reasonable doubt” question, I do not think they are the jury’s response to Walton’s asking them to rephrase it. I think they are other questions that came up in the interval between asking it and then considering (or submitting) Walton’s request for the rephrase.

Therefore: I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the “reasonable doubt” question has been dealt with by these specific Question 3 questions. I think we may see the rephrased “reasonable doubt” question TODAY.

95 @
22

“Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?”

Here’s where the finding of fact comes in.

The prosecution, in point of fact, is alleging both things, but that’s plainly not what the jury’s asking. Rather, it wants to know whether it need only determine that Libby’s account of his conversation was willfully misleading, or whether it needs to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of Valerie Plame and lied about it. To secure a conviction, they need only determine the former, not the latter.

So why are they asking this? (And here’s where a finding of fact starts to enter the debate.) Obviously, its easier to find the former than the latter – and its seems probable that they have been unable to achieve consensus on the latter point. But if they’re bothering to ask as a means of advancing their deliberations, it must mean that consensus has either been achieved or seems imminently achievable on the former point – that is, that the jury is convinced he lied about the conversation, but can’t agree on just how much he knew by that date. So Walton will tell them they need only determine the former, and this impasse, at least, will be resolved.

Well, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarity.

Woodhall Hollow @ 23

I wonder if one reason that Fitz included Count 3 in the indictment was no so much that he needed a conviction on that particular count (the Russert ones are much clearer) but to force the jury to really grapple with Libby’s pattern of lying. His lying “style” so to speak.

That’s a good point. One instance of perjury doesn’t necessarily add up to obstruction of justice. Two instances do.

I’ve been thinking, perhaps too logically, that they must have dealt with the perjury and lying to the FBI charges first, before tackling the 1st Obstruction charge. If Libby didn’t commit perjury, then he didn’t obstruct.

My only reason for thinking they might be doing it this way is that there are scientists on this jury.

dolso @ 28

I hear that the jury is well dressed today, so there may be a verdict.

I would think that Bush would not pardon Libby until the appeal process is over or it is January, 2009 whichever is earlier, because if Bush pardons Libby then he is admitting that his administration is totally corrupt

I think Bush will pardon Libby whenever he wants. Remember he is The Decider!

Pachacutec @
6

Wow, Walton surely did take the discussion on a wild ride yesterday, clearly implying there had been some finding of fact, which then had to get sorted out and walked back.

Well, I think I got the capitalization correct–so it appears that Walton may have gotten hung up on the capitalized OR.

Hi all:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

First off, thanks so much to Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn and Swopa for all their work (hope I did not forget anyone). You guys deserve a vacation after this. If that’s not in the works at least treat yourselves to a nice bottle of wine.

As a non-lawyer I was confused by the jury’s question regarding reasonable doubt. Why was their question a bad one and how did Walton respond? Did Walton ultimately give them some direction? Did this resolve in favor of the defense or prosecution?

Thanks in advance.

Something that just occurred to me—

People have been speculating that these questions have been coming from the scientist PhDs or the mathematician on the jury. I think not likely. Rather these questions of *parsing* the statement sound like lawyer-type questions to me. And it suggests to me that it is the lawyer who wants to sew up all these loose ends, partially because he/she knows there is a possibility that they may be reviewed on appeal and also just for personal pride, saying that the jury did their due dilligence.

I read all this wrangling over count 3 as the jury did not have specific statements over which to judge findings of fact for this count as they did for count 5. That makes it all the much harder to reach a consensus. It sounds like to me that the lawyer is playing “judge” in the jury room and spelling out the possible scenarios over which consensus can be reached with regards to Libby’s guilt on count 3. In other words, there must be a faction on the jury who believes that since they found Libby guilty on count 5, automatically the same must be true on count 3, since Libby told the same lies.

But there’s probably another faction that’s saying, well we don’t necessarily KNOW that because we don’t have the specific statements that Fitz alleges to be false. But maybe we DO know that Libby knew at the time of his FBI interviews that Plame worked at the CIA and that he confirmed that to Cooper in his call. Thus, he lied to the FBI when he made up his cover story about learning it from reporters and that he didn’t know that Plame was CIA as a fact.

In fact, if you read paragraph 3 of Count three of the indictment, you’ll see that’s exactly what Fitz is alleging. However, the jury does not have access to this info.

anyone here using Breaking News alerts on cell phones ? which one, how far behind the breaking curve is it, and was it much trouble signing up ???

I’ll take my answer on the air*g*

KJD @ 37

Hi all:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

First off, thanks so much to Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn and Swopa for all their work (hope I did not forget anyone). You guys deserve a vacation after this. If that’s not in the works at least treat yourselves to a nice bottle of wine.

As a non-lawyer I was confused by the jury’s question regarding reasonable doubt. Why was their question a bad one and how did Walton respond? Did Walton ultimately give them some direction? Did this resolve in favor of the defense or prosecution?

Thanks in advance.

- um – and Christy! and Pach! &&& ;->

cbl @ 39

I’ll take my answer on the air*g*

;)

It seems to me, the more I think about it, that this jury seems especially cognizant of the magnitude of the charges and the people involved. This might explain the abundance of caution with which they seem to be proceeding. Perhaps they are being extra careful so as to avoid the kind of attention that, say, the OJ jurors received after the trial. Just as Walton is focused on potential appeals to higher courts, the jury may also be focused on the trial aftermath, and so are dotting every “i” and crossing every “t.” If I imagine myself on a jury in a case where the VP and the war were a backdrop to the action, I think I’d feel like I were working on something pretty damned important, and I’d want to get it right.

Either that or there’s a lone wingnut…

PatVa @ 7

Okay, I bet a sick day on this being verdict day. Come on, jury, let’s be done with this!

yes, i did that LAST week.
think today is the day.
after they get this last issue resolved, they’ll go for a vote, and come back before the end of the day. even the jury is tired of the process now.

viget – brilliant! How fantastic is it to get a wise judge, a whip-smart prosecutor, a self-destructing defender, and a jury who takes pride n their work?

jeannefisk @
9

Oh no, another day of not getting any work done. Maybe I could get a job as “comment refresher”.

I’ve been staying late, working till 7:00 every night to make up for all the time I spend here during the day. A guilty conscience is a heavy thing (not something Irving Lewis would know anything about…). Today would be a very good day for a verdict.

Maybe Count 3 was Fitz’s way of throwing a bone to any juror who might have qualms about convicting. It allows Libby to be acquitted on one count, thereby easing someone’s conscience.

This promises to be quite a day. Walter Reed hearings. Fired U.S. Attorneys hearings. Continuing carnage in Iraq. And, of course, a possible guilty verdict in the Libby trial.

Thanks 95 for the clarification. Because I am not a lawyer – I have to ask what I think might be a stupid question. What if the jury doesn’t find either Russert’s or Cooper’s testimony compelling (beyond a reasonable doubt), but have concluded that Libby intentionally misled the GJ and the FBI.

What would the jury’s options be then?

aack! another 30 min delay from AAA. I’d say, Come on Jury! but i love the fact they are being meticulous.

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

Is the prosecution’s allegation in Count 3 that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 OR 11/26/03? (Page 74/75 …”that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.”)

The thing that needs to be clarified to the jury is that Libby is accused of lying in telling the FBI that he told Cooper that he did not know if it was true that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

So the answer to the first question is the first alternative, and the answer to the second question is “No.”

And just to add to my previous comment, I’m not saying that the judge in fact is going to clarify what needs to be clarified to the jury.

emptywheel @
25

Folks:

On the question of jury’s dress–yes, MSNBC says they’re dressed up. But remember, they may well have expected they’d be dragged into the court room to get an instruction on this question. Last time they were brought into the court room, they were reluctant about it because they were wearing their grungies.

And yet they were all willing to present themselves in red Valentine’s Day t-shirts.

Damn, these people have a weird sense of sartorial consistency.

Chady @ 46

Maybe Count 3 was Fitz’s way of throwing a bone to any juror who might have qualms about convicting. It allows Libby to be acquitted on one count, thereby easing someone’s conscience.

I don’t think Fitz would ever intend to ease their conscience. He charged all the crimes he felt he was able to prove in court.

What is Trixie McMuffin (Comstock)wearing?

“As a non-lawyer I was confused by the jury’s question regarding reasonable doubt. Why was their question a bad one and how did Walton respond? Did Walton ultimately give them some direction? Did this resolve in favor of the defense or prosecution?”

The question was: “We would like clarification of the term “reasonable doubt.” Specifically, is it necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”

The question was bad:

a) because it was very poorly written and showed the jury does not understand the basic reasonable doubt instruction that they have already been given (prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not ALL POSSIBLE doubt) and

b) because it showed that there might be holdouts on the jury who won’t convict because its barely maybe possible that Libby really did forget.

The judge told them to clarify their question, specifically what they meant by “humanly possible.” Most would say it came out in favor of the defense b/c the judge didn’t just say “No, it is NOT necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” I don’t know if they have clarified the question yet, I don’t think so.

I like the theory that the lawyer (how the hell did that happen?) on the jury is behind a lot of these questions. I am thinking that they are pretty clear on LIbby’s lies, but they are now moving through the process of filling out the jury forms and finalizing their decisions. Tying up loose ends questions.

I am thinking that if there is a verdict today, it will be within a couple hours after Walton’s instruction, like around lunch time. If not, they have a ways to go and there won’t be one today.

Adie @
40

KJD @ 37

Hi all:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

First off, thanks so much to Jane, Marcy, Jeralyn and Swopa for all their work (hope I did not forget anyone). You guys deserve a vacation after this. If that’s not in the works at least treat yourselves to a nice bottle of wine.

As a non-lawyer I was confused by the jury’s question regarding reasonable doubt. Why was their question a bad one and how did Walton respond? Did Walton ultimately give them some direction? Did this resolve in favor of the defense or prosecution?

Thanks in advance.

- um – and Christy! and Pach! &&& ;->

Aaaaarrrgh! Many apologies!

Ok, so is Jane wearing her verdict dress today? Does she have a nice warm coat available? It’s cold out there, snow in the forecast for tomorrow.

Thank you amy.

What is Trixie McMuffin (Comstock)wearing?

ashes and sackcloth in my perfect world

Is the dinosaur costume being worn today?

US Attorney Firings hearing now on C-SPAN 3
Watch C-SPAN

Can someone please rev up Gabbly? I don’t know how…

BTW – Schumer comes out charging at the US Attorney hearing. C-Span 3

No Sartorial Consistency – country’s goint to hell in a handbasket!! Love the snark! (The Valentine’s Day T-shirts, i believe, was in appreciation to the Court personnel who have treated them with every consideration.)

And just let me say, thank you, thank you, thank you to Jane, Christy, Emptywheel, Swopa, Pach, Trex, Peterr, Scarecrow, and all the other posters and commenters here. What a wonderful, passionate, fair-minded, snarky, smart community. And so good-lookin’, too!

You all make me want to be a better man. ;-)

Shots, anybody?

OT- watchingamerica.com is a good site to get views of how we look to the rest of the world. Here’s a lead article from Mexico’s La Jornada: “Bush Cannon Fodder at Walter Reed”:

http://www.watchingamerica.com…..0063.shtml

EPU’d

Between conference tournament play, week-three of “the patch”, judiciary hearings and being on verdict watch; I may soon require intensive
in-patient care!

mc @
47

This promises to be quite a day. Walter Reed hearings. Fired U.S. Attorneys hearings. Continuing carnage in Iraq. And, of course, a possible guilty verdict in the Libby trial.

Poor scrambling repubs don’t have time to catch their collective breath long enuf to charge the Dems with being a “do nothing” party. Dontcha love it?!

I would think with a lawyer in the jury room, they wouldn’t need to ask for a clarification of “reasonable doubt”

I think maybe Marcy is away from the ‘puter. She did mention something about going for coffee.

They have a Starbucks cart right there in the ocurthouse, which is why you see all those pix of Fitz with a starbucks cup.

They have regular coffee in the courthouse cafeteria as well. Not bad atucally.

upper left edge @ 16

Thanks for all that Firedoglake has done! Yes, I still think a Pulizer is deserved for the best coverage of a very important event in our country’s history. This is the best example, so far, of what the internet can do in a democracy.

Hear! Hear! Hear! Here’s another $50.07!!

Kathryn in MA @
49

aack! another 30 min delay from AAA. I’d say, Come on Jury! but i love the fact they are being meticulous.

I think your AAA guy is stuck monitoring FDL. He’ll be there after the verdict.

JGabriel @ 52

emptywheel @
25

Folks:

On the question of jury’s dress–yes, MSNBC says they’re dressed up. But remember, they may well have expected they’d be dragged into the court room to get an instruction on this question. Last time they were brought into the court room, they were reluctant about it because they were wearing their grungies.

And yet they were all willing to present themselves in red Valentine’s Day t-shirts.

Damn, these people have a weird sense of sartorial consistency.

mebbe they’re just playing with our little minds….

The head radio [W-Ahgoo] keeps playing the same loop these days. It’s a compilation of the Jeopardy theme, Evil Empire Darth music, the Dead’s Sugar Magnolia, War’s War and BBKing singing, Got my Mojo Working!

Sometimes I have to jump up and dance a bit! This is nerve-wracking.

okay, the yahoo cell phone alert thingy isn’t working – anyone ???

http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com

Pat @ 69

I would think with a lawyer in the jury room, they wouldn’t need to ask for a clarification of “reasonable doubt”

And yet, that logic escapes them. Go figure?

cbl—

We’ll send you a Marcygram.

LaFourmiRouge @ 63

Can someone please rev up Gabbly? I don’t know how…

BTW – Schumer comes out charging at the US Attorney hearing. C-Span 3

http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com/

emptywheel @
36

Pachacutec @
6

Wow, Walton surely did take the discussion on a wild ride yesterday, clearly implying there had been some finding of fact, which then had to get sorted out and walked back.

Well, I think I got the capitalization correct–so it appears that Walton may have gotten hung up on the capitalized OR.

Could someone elaborate please?

OT – chimpy is on cnn now…

EPUing myself on the US Attorney Firings

Here’s a link for a ’scorecard’ for today’s hearings on the firing of US Attorneys:
Fired US Attorneys

Fired US Attorneys
“Eight U.S. attorneys were fired by the Justice Department, seven on one day, late last year. Most had positive job reviews and were presiding over public corruption probes when dismissed. Six are due to testify before Congress today.”

looseheadprop @ 70

I think maybe Marcy is away from the ‘puter.

setting up today’s power lunch/schmooze?
signing books?

attagurlll EW! ;->

I’ve been on several juries and I always wear grungies.

Boy was that an anti-climax. We all rushed up to the courtroom and it was over in 5 minutes.

It’s kind of impressive that the jury is still struggling with this — if they were going to throw a bone to the doubters and compromise they probably would have done so last week.

I got Marcy coffee. I had a tower of coffee cups and breakfast stuff and Ted Wells was laughing at me and cracking wise. I came back and said “Marcy, I’ve got my morning post…”

Last time they were brought into the court room, they were reluctant about it because they were wearing their grungies.

I just want to say that I love the word “grungies” and will attempt to use it every place possible.

dolso @ 28

I hear that the jury is well dressed today, so there may be a verdict.

I would think that Bush would not pardon Libby until the appeal process is over or it is January, 2009 whichever is earlier, because if Bush pardons Libby then he is admitting that his administration is totally corrupt

Some one on Chris Mathews show last week mentioned maybe Bush would pardon Libby. Mathews said that you have to admit guilt to receive a pardon and Libby was an honorably man, then Mathews corrected him self and said that he thought Libby was an honorable man and Libby wouldn’t agree to it. I am paraphrasing here.

To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

looseheadprop @ 77

Pat @ 69

I would think with a lawyer in the jury room, they wouldn’t need to ask for a clarification of “reasonable doubt”

And yet, that logic escapes them. Go figure?

scientists in the room also. remember?
trust me; they gotta get evidence from more than one source, if at all possible….
it’s a good thing… ;->

mc @
65

And just let me say, thank you, thank you, thank you to Jane, Christy, Emptywheel, Swopa, Pach, Trex, Peterr, Scarecrow, and all the other posters and commenters here. What a wonderful, passionate, fair-minded, snarky, smart community. And so good-lookin’, too!

You all make me want to be a better man. ;-)

Shots, anybody?

Just don’t say that with VP Cheney around…

looseheadprop @ 70

I think maybe Marcy is away from the ‘puter. She did mention something about going for coffee.

They have a Starbucks cart right there in the ocurthouse, which is why you see all those pix of Fitz with a starbucks cup.

They have regular coffee in the courthouse cafeteria as well. Not bad atucally.

I know Starbucks doesn’t do much advertising, but if they did — well, geeze, pictures of Fitz holding a Starbucks cup? Not that Fitz would ever do such a thing, but what better product placement could they ask for?

looseheadprop @ 77

Pat @ 69

I would think with a lawyer in the jury room, they wouldn’t need to ask for a clarification of “reasonable doubt”

And yet, that logic escapes them. Go figure?

yknow i have not been paying enough attention.

i didn’t know there was a lawyer on the jury. all my darkest fears are stirred by that one.

lawyer may not have direct ties to the administration, but maybe someone at his/her firm does. or someone at firm was told there are big new clients awaiting should lawyer on jury become the one vote holding out for acquittal.
this is why the longer the deliberations go, the more anxious i get.

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

twolf1 @ 81

OT – chimpy is on cnn now…

- uh, yeah, speaking of “reasonable doubt” ….
BUSY now! I’ll wait for the book….
sh-h-h-h…

sdf (Stu) @ 90

I know Starbucks doesn’t do much advertising, but if they did — well, geeze, pictures of Fitz holding a Starbucks cup? Not that Fitz would ever do such a thing, but what better product placement could they ask for?

Might not be too effective attracting modern-day Republicans; you know, the ones who can’t understand why on earth this trial is even happening.

Does the jury have a copy of the Indictment?

EW,

Does seeing the actual questions cause you to reconsider the optimism of your earlier post?

suncatcher @ 87

dolso @ 28
To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

Bush’s father pardoned Weinberger prior to trial. Ford pardoned Nixon without any trial looming. Neither Nixon or Weinburger ever admitted guilt.

Morning all

cbl @ 75

okay, the yahoo cell phone alert thingy isn’t working – anyone ???

Hi cbl,

I’m using a regular a Yahoo email alert for something. It works but it’s real slow, as in hours (8 to 10 hours or longer)

suncatcher @ 87

To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

Ford gave Nixon a pardon and he was never found guilty. Furthermore, George HW Bush gave pardons to all the Iran-Contra people, those found guilty and those awaiting trial.

suncatcher @
87

Some one on Chris Mathews show last week mentioned maybe Bush would pardon Libby. Mathews said that you have to admit guilt to receive a pardon and Libby was an honorably man, then Mathews corrected him self and said that he thought Libby was an honorable man and Libby wouldn’t agree to it. I am paraphrasing here.

To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

No. It’s completely up to the president’s discretion.

That said, post-pardon Libby *could* be forced through Congressional or other testimony to ‘fess up, as he would have immunity on those charges and wouldn’t be able to use self-incrimination as a shield.

But it’s not necessary to admit guilt to receive a pardon. Otherwise the wrongfully convicted wouldn’t be eligible, and that would make no sense.

WH @ 92, what bad choices.

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

eeewwwwww

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

I hope that Dole, being a wounded vet, feels more loyalty to the wounded than to the Republican Party.

Libby testified at his first FBI interview that he had found notes of his prior conversation with The Dick about Plame — after the Russert conversation but before the first FBI interview — that made him realize that he had in fact learned about Plame before he talked to Russert. But while he did not deny the significance of the notes, he told the FBI that he still didn’t have an independent recollection of the Cheney conversation.

Clearly, if he lied about the Cooper conversation, he necessarily lied about the FBI interview. He couldn’t have forgotten by October that he knew about Plame when he talked to Cooper in July. And Wells certainly was not making that argument.

It is, however, theoretically possible to have have been truthful when he told the FBI that he didn’t remember Plame’s job when he spoke to Cooper, but to have lied when he told the FBI that the notes did not refresh his recollection. I think if they all agreed that he lied to the FBI about the state of recollection at that time, that would suffice to reach a guilty verdict, even if they did not agree about the falsity of his account of the Cooper conversation. But there is no basis for the jury to reach that conclusion.

So I don’t understand why they were asking the question. I am confused.

And don’t blame this on the lawyer. No lawyer would be asking questions like this.

Thanks Coz,

can’t seem to get any of them to send the promised e mail/text w/ confirmation codes -Crikey!

WH @ 92: There are many other people out there who would be better. Oh well, just another attempt by the Dubya administration to sweep this under a rug. Appoint some people to look at it then trash the report, etc., etc. You know the drill…..

cbl! cbl! cbl! cbl! cbl! cbl! cbl! cbl!

testing – 1 – 2 – 3 – this is only a test

repeat – this is only a test

hellllllllooooooooo?
do you read?
over?

I hope that Dole, being a wounded vet, feels more loyalty to the wounded than to the Republican Party

you mean like those reactionary bastids who feted Darth yesterday ??? (VFW)

looseheadprop @ 70

I think maybe Marcy is away from the ‘puter. She did mention something about going for coffee.

They have a Starbucks cart right there in the ocurthouse, which is why you see all those pix of Fitz with a starbucks cup.

They have regular coffee in the courthouse cafeteria as well. Not bad atucally.

Nope–refresh–the response is up.

Accepting a pardon does imply that you are guilty. But, if you have been convicted and the conviction upheld on appeal, then it doesn’t much matter, IMHO.

For a good history of the pardon power, see this opinion.

http://www.bluegrassreport.org…..009_MR.pdf

Start on page 43 of the pdf, under the heading:

II. Pardons

for clarity, the judge should instruct – libby may lie all he wants to cooper without penalty, however, he must be truthful in the recounting of his lies to the fbi.

whether libby was lying to cooper when he said reporters were telling him these things, or that he was lying when he said he didn’t know if it were true is beside the point (goes to things not covered by this trial). it is whether these statements were ever uttered from libby’s mouth, and whether libby deliberately said these things to the fbi if he knows they never occurred, truthful or otherwise.

Good Morning All. Getting a late start today.
Okay some more law questions: do juries often have this many questions? Is this unusual? I know it’s an historic case, but I wonder if there are this many questions in capital crime cases where there may be a death sentence?
Also, to me, based on the response I just read, the questions pertain to basic elements of the case. After all the testimony about the OVP going back and forth with media could they still wonder if it’s a crime for Libby to have lied to Cooper.

This just seems like more obfuscation and obstruction. Makes me think there’s a Repub/PA on the jury.

Badwater @ 105

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

I hope that Dole, being a wounded vet, feels more loyalty to the wounded than to the Republican Party.

I doubt it. Remember his response during the purple heart bandaids. Weak and partisan.

Adie @ 83

looseheadprop @ 70

I think maybe Marcy is away from the ‘puter.

setting up today’s power lunch/schmooze?
signing books?

attagurlll EW! ;->

Oh no, that’s already set up. Meeting a woman with whom I went to college. It’s a lot easier coordinating lunches when the lunch date works in the building.

As anyone sued Firedoglake for alienation of affection yet?

I always assumed that a pardon was a kind of executive “forgiveness.” Clemency, mercy. And not a statement of guilt or innocence.

maybe I am dense, but I don’t get it! Didn’t these people pay attention during the trial, as to what was going on? They are digging so deep in the legal jargon of all of this, they don’t seem to have a grasp on the Basics of this at all!

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

What’s wrong with these people? By 10/14/03 everbody and his/her dog knew that “Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA” as of 10/14/03; they had read it in Novak’s article three months earlier. And, hell no, the prosecution is not alleging that Libby lied to Cooper; that wouldn’t be a crime.

Folks, this is NOT good!

Badwater @ 105

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

I hope that Dole, being a wounded vet, feels more loyalty to the wounded than to the Republican Party.

Gerbils? What’s with the gerbils?
Does it have something to do with his Vi*gra ads?

Horrible memory flooding my mind: Liddy Dole, when asked about her husband’s role as Vi*gra spokesman, saying “It’s a WONDERFUL drug!”

I just had to share that with you.

Dole had hip replacement surgery in December ‘05, then had a bad bout of infections during recovery.

I am surprised he is able – I figured he was out of the spotlight and biz for good.

WRT the lawyer and reasonable doubt–

My guess is that the lawyer is the forewoman (I think the lawyer’s a woman). I think she’s been leading the discussions and trying to be the arbiter among the factions. So, she may not have wanted to weigh in with her opinion regarding reasonable doubt, OR she did, and some holdout faction just wanted to hear it from the judge. Hence the exasperation with that note.

BTW, I would like to point out that what Judge Walton did with his response was very favorable to Fitz. His response was basically to include paragraph 3 of the third count from the indictment. This makes it crystal clear as to what the prosecution is alleging. I’m actually surprised that Wells agreed to this.

And actually he also went further in straight out telling the jury that it doesn’t matter if Libby knew Plame was CIA when he lied about the Cooper statment, because that wasn’t important for the charged lie.

It is important for count 5 though. Some of the underlined statements have Libby asserting that he didn’t know Plame was CIA (he was only passing on gossip from reporters) and even more incredulously, that he didn’t even know Joe Wilson had a wife.

Iglesias is up on C-span. Apparently he was the hero-lawyer in a A Few Good Men. Who would’ve thunk it?

USA Lam speaking now

OT – advertisers fleeing Coltergeist
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…..index.html

Jim E. @ 96

EW,

Does seeing the actual questions cause you to reconsider the optimism of your earlier post?

Just a little. Consider, though, that this is really the only charge where they have to determine whether the journalist or the Libby was telling the truth. They didn’t need to do that with Russert, or with all the babblings of the Cooper gj testimony.

That’s what I have to believe, though, bc I want my life back. First the truth, then my life.

Jury Confusion is the link at Drudge. This is not sounding good.

To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with lying to the FBI about what was said in his July 12, 2003, convesation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.

Okay, that should indeed clarify things, but it sure makes the jury seem stupid (or, to be a bit more charitable, terribly confused): did they think lying to Cooper was the crime?

I’m hoping that first statement will resolve this false statement question once and for all.

my faith in Marcy’s optimism knows no bounds.

OT – listening to the Chimp on NPR, talking about the Dole/Shalala Commission. He souinds really, really tired. He needs some of Marcy’s optimism a long, very cold shower.

EW 116

That sounds far better still.
Have a nice relaxing lunch!
You EARNED it!
In all seriousness, we are so indebted to you for your skill & dedication! You’re a treasure. ;->

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

Dole can get the problems fixed without making people look bad or holding them accountable for incompetence, malfeasence or bad policy.

If this problem goes to the top, as in its a result of policy decisions, I don’t think Dole will fight for the right of the people to know.

With the money they spend of Defense, there is no reason for resources to be a problem. The Bushites wanted to privatize Walter Reed. That’ll take the starch out of efforts to correct problems.

Why bother when W is about to outsource you. The servicemen and women were about to be reassigned or be put in charge of civilians. That is a no win for servicemen and women. Civilians do not take orders.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts a policy decision was made to not screen for traumatic brain injury by civilians leaders not military medical personnel.

Gerbils? What’s with the gerbils?
Does it have something to do with his Vi*gra ads?

Horrible memory flooding my mind: Liddy Dole, when asked about her husband’s role as Vi*gra spokesman, saying “It’s a WONDERFUL drug!”

I just had to share that with you.

Great, now I have to go back into therapy, thanks

In a way it is cool that NM is moving forward with their work.
Hopefully, the investigations will move forward and be PUBLISHED so that people like Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) will feel that they have to vote for impeachment.

When calls come from republicans for impeachment, Pelosi will move forward with it. There are a enough honest republicans who will get pissed off with what will be found that actions will be taken.
However, acting to quick is a problem.

With the impeachment of Nixon, a few months later nobody would admit to voting for Nixon. If you are looking for W to be removed you want the news and national option to be such that in 2008 nobody will admit to voting for W.

Marcy, when I saw the judge’s response in your link, my first thought, also, was that the clarification favors Team Fitz. I disagree, however, about instruction number three. Increasingly, from the notes coming from the jury, I think that the jury is convinced that Libby lied to the GJ. I also think they have taken to heart Zeidenberg’s insistence on a pattern of lying, but that for most, if not all of them, it was hearing the GJ testimony that was the compelling evidence. Now they’re simply asking how much that can be used to influence their thinking on the other issues. IANAL, but I can relate to how the jurors must be reacting to the evidence presented, and I think that, at this point, Libby will be convicted on all counts.

viget @ 123

WRT the lawyer and reasonable doubt–

My guess is that the lawyer is the forewoman (I think the lawyer’s a woman). I think she’s been leading the discussions and trying to be the arbiter among the factions. So, she may not have wanted to weigh in with her opinion regarding reasonable doubt, OR she did, and some holdout faction just wanted to hear it from the judge. Hence the exasperation with that note.

Ironic if the lawyer is the foreperson. The reason most lawyers don’t like to have lawyers on a jury — especially litigators — is that they are afraid that the lawyer will have undue influence over the other jurors, perhaps convincing them to ignore the judge’s instructions in favor of the lawyer’s own personal views about the law.

Tina @ 127

Jury Confusion is the link at Drudge. This is not sounding good.

Who cares what Drudge is naming his link. He is a right-wing propagandist and nothing more!

Ed*ard Teller @ 130

OT – listening to the Chimp on NPR, talking about the Dole/Shalala Commission. He souinds really, really tired. He needs some of Marcy’s optimism a long, very cold shower.

He must have gone on a really long bike ride this morning.

Tina @ 128

Jury Confusion is the link at Drudge. This is not sounding good.

That’s what you get for reading that slimeball’s edition of the “news.”

Bergs @ 119

maybe I am dense, but I don’t get it! Didn’t these people pay attention during the trial, as to what was going on? They are digging so deep in the legal jargon of all of this, they don’t seem to have a grasp on the Basics of this at all!

Don’t be too too harsh on that count. Things are very very different when a jury goes back into that room by themselves. I’m just glad they appear to be careful and methodical.

amy @ 112

Accepting a pardon does imply that you are guilty.

There have been cases of a governor issuing a pardon to someone after it was proven that person had been wrongfully convicted. It’s more expeditious than getting the conviction overturned. Accepting a pardon could just mean you want your record cleared.

By: SandyBurglar on February 27, 2007 at 11:33am Ed*ard Teller @ 130

OT – listening to the Chimp on NPR, talking about the Dole/Shalala Commission. He souinds really, really tired. He needs some of Marcy’s optimism a long, very cold shower.

He must have gone on a really long bike ride this morning.

grayslady @
134

Marcy, when I saw the judge’s response in your link, my first thought, also, was that the clarification favors Team Fitz. I disagree, however, about instruction number three. Increasingly, from the notes coming from the jury, I think that the jury is convinced that Libby lied to the GJ. I also think they have taken to heart Zeidenberg’s insistence on a pattern of lying, but that for most, if not all of them, it was hearing the GJ testimony that was the compelling evidence. Now they’re simply asking how much that can be used to influence their thinking on the other issues. IANAL, but I can relate to how the jurors must be reacting to the evidence presented, and I think that, at this point, Libby will be convicted on all counts.

I should clarify: When I said “we could get into trouble” I meant legally–it seems like it leaves consideration of the GJ testimony as overly broad. But I do agree that may make it easier for the jury to come to some agreement.

litigatormom @ 106

Libby testified at his first FBI interview that he had found notes of his prior conversation with The Dick about Plame — after the Russert conversation but before the first FBI interview — that made him realize that he had in fact learned about Plame before he talked to Russert. But while he did not deny the significance of the notes, he told the FBI that he still didn’t have an independent recollection of the Cheney conversation.

Clearly, if he lied about the Cooper conversation, he necessarily lied about the FBI interview. He couldn’t have forgotten by October that he knew about Plame when he talked to Cooper in July. And Wells certainly was not making that argument.

It is, however, theoretically possible to have have been truthful when he told the FBI that he didn’t remember Plame’s job when he spoke to Cooper, but to have lied when he told the FBI that the notes did not refresh his recollection. I think if they all agreed that he lied to the FBI about the state of recollection at that time, that would suffice to reach a guilty verdict, even if they did not agree about the falsity of his account of the Cooper conversation. But there is no basis for the jury to reach that conclusion.

So I don’t understand why they were asking the question. I am confused.

And don’t blame this on the lawyer. No lawyer would be asking questions like this.

Thanks for the logic trail on that. I had that in my mind, but couldn’t sort it out. It makes sense that Scooter “maybe” forgot about who Plame was when talking to Cooper (I highly doubt that though), but it’s highly improbable that he didn’t know who she was when talking to the FBI especially after consulting the notes. The jury should be using reasonability here. And the old addage “leopards rarely change their spots”, meaning once a liar…

Leahy is invoking the Sat. Night Massacre!!!!

sdf (Stu) @
129

To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with lying to the FBI about what was said in his July 12, 2003, convesation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.

Okay, that should indeed clarify things, but it sure makes the jury seem stupid (or, to be a bit more charitable, terribly confused): did they think lying to Cooper was the crime?

Just remember it could only be one person who is confused, or allegedly confused. If they are stubbornly holding on to their confusion, the rest of the jury could just be asking the judge to help them out cause the wingnut confused juror is still not convinced.

Woodhall Hollow @ 124

Iglesias is up on C-span. Apparently he was the hero-lawyer in a A Few Good Men. Who would’ve thunk it?

What channe? I have the house on CSPAN 1 and the senateon CSPAN 2

Does it appear to anyone else that Walton did not understand this question….

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

IMHO, the question the jury wanted answered was…

Is the prosecution alleging that when Mr Libby spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03 that he did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA?

The question that Walton answered makes no sense

I expect we will be either getting a new note from the jury rephrasing the original question, or the jury will just vote to acquit on Count 3 and convict on everything else because its obvious that they aren’t going to get straight answers to their questions…

Fitzmas @ 122

Dole had hip replacement surgery in December ‘05, then had a bad bout of infections during recovery.

I am surprised he is able – I figured he was out of the spotlight and biz for good.

You don’t think Bush wants somebody on the commission who can actually do a good job of it, do you?

MariaSquared @ 145

sdf (Stu) @
129

To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with lying to the FBI about what was said in his July 12, 2003, convesation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.

Okay, that should indeed clarify things, but it sure makes the jury seem stupid (or, to be a bit more charitable, terribly confused): did they think lying to Cooper was the crime?

Just remember it could only be one person who is confused, or allegedly confused. If they are stubbornly holding on to their confusion, the rest of the jury could just be asking the judge to help them out cause the wingnut confused juror is still not convinced.

You’re absolutely right on that, and it occurred to me just after I posted it.

If the jury instructions contain an incorrect date for one of Libby’s FBI interviews, doesn’t Mr. Fitzgerald need to ensure that the error is corrected — and pronto?

Emptywheel wrote:

The language of the instruction that they’re hung up on reads:

Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 16 [sic]

I’m not sure if that quote is from the final version of the instructions or something else.

Big thank yous to emptywheel, looseheadprop, Jane, Christy, Pachacutec, Swopa and everybody else who’s allowed me to follow this trial so closely and understand some of what’s going on.

Now I must stop following the trial and head to work. With my fingers crossed that the jury will give us back the truth. Today.

Neil @ 145

Woodhall Hollow @ 124

Iglesias is up on C-span. Apparently he was the hero-lawyer in a A Few Good Men. Who would’ve thunk it?

What channe? I have the house on CSPAN 1 and the senateon CSPAN 2

CSPAN 3.

Badwater @ 137

Ed*ard Teller @ 130

OT – listening to the Chimp on NPR, talking about the Dole/Shalala Commission. He souinds really, really tired. He needs some of Marcy’s optimism a long, very cold shower.

He must have gone on a really long bike ride this morning.

naw. I’m guessing he’s cranking up to another of those whine-y “this job is HARD!” pity-party modes.

next, he’ll be wanting us to pat him on the head for being a good boy & not getting any clots in his legs…

Who cares what Drudge is naming his link. He is a right-wing propagandist and nothing more!

Our Lady of the Albumen©

(©TBogg)

MariaSquared @ 146

Just remember it could only be one person who is confused, or allegedly confused. If they are stubbornly holding on to their confusion, the rest of the jury could just be asking the judge to help them out cause the wingnut confused juror is still not convinced.

An attorney commented at Jeralyn’s blog – I’m papaphrasing – “It’s the mathematician. Never let a mathematician on your jury.”

Seems to me that It might be a good idea to be “live blogging” the senate hearings on Cspan 3 right now. This U.S. Attorney firing issue is a biggie.

JGabriel @ 101

suncatcher @
87

To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

No. It’s completely up to the president’s discretion.

That said, post-pardon Libby *could* be forced through Congressional or other testimony to ‘fess up, as he would have immunity on those charges and wouldn’t be able to use self-incrimination as a shield.

But it’s not necessary to admit guilt to receive a pardon. Otherwise the wrongfully convicted wouldn’t be eligible, and that would make no sense.

JGabriel – I thought that several of our legal eagles here previously said that accepting a pardon *does* require admission of guilt, and it would make Libby ineligible to use 5th amendment in the coming civil case (and any other investigations that might follow).

Can someone clarify this, once and for all?
I suppose it’s putting the cart way before the horse… but it is an interesting point to ponder. First, the jury has to convict Irving… fingers crossed it will be early this afternoon (though I’m starting to have some doubts that it won’t be for another day or two).

I can’t figure out how to edit…so the above should read…

IMHO, the question the jury wanted answered was…

Is the prosecution alleging that when Mr Libby spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03 that he did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke with cooper?

And don’t blame this on the lawyer. No lawyer would be asking questions like this.

Ditto for the mathematician. It seems that we have a wingnut (or maybe two) on the jury. (Of course, either the lawyer or the mathematician could also be a wingnut.) The jury is methodically going through the parsing of the wingnut(s) in order to tilt them (it) toward reality.

If there is only one wingnut, I think that the other 10 can bring him/her around to guilty verdicts. If there are two or more, we will get a hung jury because the wingnuts will provide support for each other and confusion for all the rest.

Polls show that Bush got a slight bump in approval in Jan and early february- but now he’s back to his all time lows as in December. Goopers are yellin at him to get in front of the american people and talk about Iraq- to “sell” his plan using the bully pulpit. At this point, probably even Bush knows that whenever he mentions Iraq, his popularity and power both shrink. He has a critical need to change the subject- but his gooper supporters won’t let him. It’s an ugly picture.

Doesn’t look good for the next couple of years.

God forbid that we have an international catastrophe in the next two years that requires the american people to trust their president- cause they WON’T..

Neil @ 132

bebe rebozo @ 103

Bush has announced that Dole and Shalala are going to Chair the Medical scandal commission. Interesting combo.

Just make sure that Bob doesn’t go searching for gerbils.

Dole can get the problems fixed without making people look bad or holding them accountable for incompetence, malfeasence or bad policy.

If this problem goes to the top, as in its a result of policy decisions, I don’t think Dole will fight for the right of the people to know.

With the money they spend of Defense, there is no reason for resources to be a problem. The Bushites wanted to privatize Walter Reed. That’ll take the starch out of efforts to correct problems.

Why bother when W is about to outsource you. The servicemen and women were about to be reassigned or be put in charge of civilians. That is a no win for servicemen and women. Civilians do not take orders.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts a policy decision was made to not screen for traumatic brain injury by civilians leaders not military medical personnel.

Progressives should not try to indict Bush with this mess, but rather Ronald Reagan and his nonsense about privatization and the “miracle of free enterprise.” Progressives will never again have to run against Bush, but they are forever running against Reagan, whether they know it or not.

US Atty’s hearing on CSpan-3. Most of us have to stream it.

Outtahere until I get a lunch break in about six hours. I’m hoping when I come back that it’s FITZMAS!

The Drudge headline is linked to an AP article, which cites jury confusion. This is simply not good news. I think the jury is hung.

CSPAN 3 is explosive. It reminds me of Watergate.

Marcy @142–Thanks for clarifying your remark. I’ve been pretty impressed so far with Walton’s attempts to anticipate appealable issues. It strikes me that it must be very difficult for a judge–who is, after all, as human as the rest of us–not to let his personal opinions interfere with his essential role as moderator of the trial. Keep up the good work!

Ed*ard Teller @ 155

MariaSquared @ 146

Just remember it could only be one person who is confused, or allegedly confused. If they are stubbornly holding on to their confusion, the rest of the jury could just be asking the judge to help them out cause the wingnut confused juror is still not convinced.

An attorney commented at Jeralyn’s blog – I’m papaphrasing – “It’s the mathematician. Never let a mathematician on your jury.”

See, I tend to think that the holdout is someone that the rest of the jury perceives as nice. Possibly even the person who made the cutesy t-shirts. That’s why I can’t cast the mathematician as the holdout. (Just kidding, I have nothing against mathematicians… in fact, some of my best friends……..etc.)

coloradobl @ 150

If the jury instructions contain an incorrect date for one of Libby’s FBI interviews, doesn’t Mr. Fitzgerald need to ensure that the error is corrected — and pronto?

Emptywheel wrote:

The language of the instruction that they’re hung up on reads:

Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 16 [sic]

I’m not sure if that quote is from the final version of the instructions or something else.

Big thank yous to emptywheel, looseheadprop, Jane, Christy, Pachacutec, Swopa and everybody else who’s allowed me to follow this trial so closely and understand some of what’s going on.

Now I must stop following the trial and head to work. With my fingers crossed that the jury will give us back the truth. Today.

It was corrected–in the oral instructions and (I believe) in the copy that went back to the jury. Just not our copy.

RevDeb @ 162

US Atty’s hearing on CSpan-3. Most of us have to stream it.

how does one do that?

Wil @ 168
RevDeb @ 162

US Atty’s hearing on CSpan-3. Most of us have to stream it.

how does one do that?

rtsp://…/cspan3db.rm

rwcole @ circa 159:
The last poll I read had Shrub at 29%. Is he lower now? Nixon was at about 24% when he resigned. How much lower does he go before this charade of a presidency is ended?

Steambomb @ 155

Seems to me that It might be a good idea to be “live blogging” the senate hearings on Cspan 3 right now. This U.S. Attorney firing issue is a biggie.

thank heaven anything on C-Span should be available for re-run later, no?

too much going on today! hooray!

Is gabbly up? I need somewhere to bitch about concern trolls that are showing up here! :)

Woodhall Hollow @ 164

CSPAN 3 is explosive. It reminds me of Watergate.

I know, I’m having a hard time watching it AND keeping up here at the same time.

Wil at 168 — Go to c-span.org and click on the watch live link at the top. Then click through on your preferred media browser to the C-Span3 link.

Fresh courtroom thread from Jane up top, everyone.

stream cspan

WigWam

Interesting comment- and true I think. The underlying point- I guess- is that it’s the underlying gooper “ideology” that’s responsible for where we are- not just one idiot President.

Rare wisdom about never running against Bush again- the attacks on him are easy shots right now- but they have no lasting impact.

Thanks for a great insight.

pwrlght @ 35

dolso @ 28

I hear that the jury is well dressed today, so there may be a verdict.

I would think that Bush would not pardon Libby until the appeal process is over or it is January, 2009 whichever is earlier, because if Bush pardons Libby then he is admitting that his administration is totally corrupt

I think Bush will pardon Libby whenever he wants. Remember he is The Decider!

The Decider will take the Republican party out!

EW sez:

That’s what I have to believe, though, bc I want my life back. First the truth, then my life.

“Give -choke- EpmtyWheel back -sob- to -sniff- herself.”

Wil @ 169

RevDeb @ 162

US Atty’s hearing on CSpan-3. Most of us have to stream it.

how does one do that?

I’m listening on CSPAN radio. Link to all C-SPAN feeds HERE

sonate @ 159

And don’t blame this on the lawyer. No lawyer would be asking questions like this.

Ditto for the mathematician. It seems that we have a wingnut (or maybe two) on the jury. (Of course, either the lawyer or the mathematician could also be a wingnut.) The jury is methodically going through the parsing of the wingnut(s) in order to tilt them (it) toward reality.

If there is only one wingnut, I think that the other 10 can bring him/her around to guilty verdicts. If there are two or more, we will get a hung jury because the wingnuts will provide support for each other and confusion for all the rest.

This is someone who has made up their mind with their feeliings, i.e., developed empathy for Libby, the poor thing, and is now blithering and grasping at logical straws to try to justify their vote for acquittal.

Sorry for O/T. Senate Judic Hearings. Testimony of Iglesias
Heather Wilson to Iglesias: What about Sealed indictments?
Sen. Domenici to Iglesias: Will you be publicizing your findings on (corruption & Dems) before Nov.? I’m very sorry to hear it. *hangs up*
Iglesias: I felt sick. It was unprecedented.

LandOfTheFree @ 156

JGabriel @ 101

suncatcher @
87

To receive a pardon, does one have to admit guilt, even if found quilty by a jury?

No. It’s completely up to the president’s discretion.

That said, post-pardon Libby *could* be forced through Congressional or other testimony to ‘fess up, as he would have immunity on those charges and wouldn’t be able to use self-incrimination as a shield.

But it’s not necessary to admit guilt to receive a pardon. Otherwise the wrongfully convicted wouldn’t be eligible, and that would make no sense.

JGabriel – I thought that several of our legal eagles here previously said that accepting a pardon *does* require admission of guilt, and it would make Libby ineligible to use 5th amendment in the coming civil case (and any other investigations that might follow).

Can someone clarify this, once and for all?
I suppose it’s putting the cart way before the horse…

Here’s the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon
Also see the opinion I cited above, it goes through the law pretty well.

http://www.bluegrassreport.org…..009_MR.pdf

Start on page 43 of the pdf, under the heading:

II. Pardons

If someone is found guilty and their conviction is affirmed on appeal, there is absolutely no point in NOT accepting a pardon, EVEN THOUGH it implicitly admits guilt. If a prisoner were to find newly discovered evidence proving innocence, they could get their conviction overturned. However, it is much easier to accept a pardon, even though it implies guilt.

kathleen @ 178

The Decider will take the Republican party out!

and they have only themselves to blame,
but it is absolutely scrumptious, isn’t it!

CSpan 3 hearings streaming here
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3

I don’t think we should assume any person(s) on the jury that are taking their time to review all the details and be fully confident in returning their verdict is a “wingnut”, a plant, or being a pain in the a**. Perhaps the jury members are taking this very seriously, and they want to review the evidence fully before they feel 100% comfy with convicting the man to one or more felonies. This is a pretty high-pressure, high-profile trial, and I don’t blame them a bit for taking the time to make sure they’re returning a just verdict.

A friend was on a jury recently, and he reminded me that for every count, there are multiple things you must ensure are proven beyond a reasonable doubt before you can return a guilty verdict. It will take time, and I won’t be surprised if they want to hear some testimony given during trial read back before confirming whichever verdicts they’re going to deliver.

I think there will be a verdict today. I suspect the jury has decided counts 1, 2, 4 and 5 and is only still struggling with Count 3.

When their first substantive questions began coming in, I speculated they would start with count 1, realize they had to decide counts 4 and 5 (perjury to grand jury) to resolve it, and finish with counts 2 and 3. I still think that’s what they are doing, although this is more tea leaves.

If that’s right, there should be a verdict pretty soon. But…I’ve been wrong before.

I hate to say this…but what are the odds that he’ll get off scot free? and is anyone taking bets?

Amy – thanks. (You might wanna keep that response handy… I have a feeling that question will come up about another 100 times before this is all over… especially if Scooter is convicted of any crimes.)

sonate

here are the most recent polls. They differ, of course, in their ratings. They don’t all ask the same question in the same way- and there are normal variations in measure- but what’s significant is that all of them are either at or a point or two above their lowest measure of all time for Bush:

.

USA Today/Gallup 3/2-4/07 33 63 4 -30
.

Newsweek 2/28 – 3/1/07 31 61 8 -30
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/27-28/07 34 57 8 -23
.

CBS/New York Times 2/23-27/07 29 61 10 -32
.

Time RV 2/23-26/07 34 60 6 -26
.

ABC/Washington Post 2/22-25/07 36 62 2 -26
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 2/21-24/07 36 60 4 -24
.

Quinnipiac RV 2/13-19/07 34 60 6 -26
.

WNBC/Marist RV 2/12-15/07 35 58 7 -23
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/13-14/07 35 56 9 -21

Ahgoo @
74

The head radio [W-Ahgoo] keeps playing the same loop these days. It’s a compilation of the Jeopardy theme, Evil Empire Darth music, the Dead’s Sugar Magnolia, War’s War and BBKing singing, Got my Mojo Working!

Sometimes I have to jump up and dance a bit! This is nerve-wracking.

Not to argue – it is *your* head radio, after all – but shouldn’t that be Edwin Starr’s “War” and Muddy Waters “Got My Mojo Working”?

Adie @ 172

Steambomb @ 155

Seems to me that It might be a good idea to be “live blogging” the senate hearings on Cspan 3 right now. This U.S. Attorney firing issue is a biggie.

thank heaven anything on C-Span should be available for re-run later, no?

too much going on today! hooray!

My point is that if we dont pay much attention to this, it wont get much attention at all. The MSM is ignoring it.

Wow — these answers to the jury questions read like a roadmap to a finding that Libby lied, probably at multiple levels

Charge Three alleges that the above statement is false in that Mr. Libby did not advise Mr. Cooper on or about July 1, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Mr. Libby advise Mr. Cooper on that date that Mr. Libby did not know whether the information regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment was true. Count Three alleges that Mr. Libby confirmed for Mr. Cooper, that Mr. Libby had heard that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA.

To be clear, Mr. Libby is charged in Count Three with lying to the FBI about what was said in his July 12, 2003, convesation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Libby is not charged with making a false statement to Mr. Cooper.

Small wonder the jury is confused. Like a set of Russian dolls nested inside each other, we see at least three layers of lies vs truth:

1. the truth of what Libby already knew when he spoke to Cooper = he knew Valerie worked at CIA.

2. the truth or falsity of what Libby actually told Cooper of what he knew = whether Libby gave Cooper confirmation of Valerie’s employment.

3. the truth or falsity of what Libby told the FBI about what he said to Cooper = he denied giving Cooper confirmation about Plame’s employment.

If the jury believes Libby knew (1), then he either lied to Cooper and did not give Cooper confirmation, though Cooper testified he did (not charged because not a crime to lie to Cooper), or lied to the FBI (charged). But either way, they’ll conclude Libby lied, and that should influence/reinforce whatever else they’re concluding. They must know by now that they’re dealing with a liar.

I think we have a jury who trying to cover all possible bases, as to make it difficult for any appeals to be filed..IMHO…
I think they have figured out that this verdict could be just the beginning and they are taking it very seriously…They are too smart collectively, and that is what I would do in this case, because the prosecution really did a great job with the evidence…
And a lot of ‘interesting’ stuff came out during the trial. They know that this Case is important..

p.lukasiak @
158

IMHO, the question the jury wanted answered was…

Is the prosecution alleging that when Mr Libby spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03 that he did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke with cooper?

The judge responded to a literal reading of what the jury asked. What the jury actually asked is retarded, which is why I don’t share the confidence of others in this jury. However, I think (hope?) p. luk is correct about what the jury actually *intended* to ask.
I wonder if Wells went along with the jury instruction because he realizes that by not addressing the intended question, Walton will only further confuse the jury.

If the jury can’t ask a coherent question, how can we expect them to understand what the case is about?

Either these questions are the result of a single, confused, pro-Libby wingnut, or we’ll be seeing a bunch of ridiculous post-case interviews with jurors who will reveal that they don’t even know what the case was about. Even if they convict, I fear the jurors will make all of us cringe.

Jim E. @ 96

EW,

Does seeing the actual questions cause you to reconsider the optimism of your earlier post?

I don’t know about EW- but I am optimistic. The jury questions seem to make sense to me. While IANAL, I am a mathematician and it is pretty obvious that whoever is the leader of this jury is a mathematician/scientist. They are carefully and methodically considering each charge. Determine exactly what is charged and then see if the evidence supports it. In this case they want to determine if Libby is charged with lying to the FBI about what he said to Cooper or lying to the FBI about whether he knew Plame worked for the CIA.

The reason I think this bodes well for the defense is because the rational mathematician will not give up on their argument if someone else disagrees- if someone is a holdout. They will just keep pressing, rephasing their “rational” argument until the holdout “gets it”.

Now, if the mathematician type was the hold out, this would probably already be a hung jury.

I was on a jury once. The case was a “resisting arrest” charge. (I know, that is not the legal term). The defendant had already been convicted of some pretty bad stuff (assault with a deadly weapon) but the first jury was hung on the resisting arrest charge.

The jury I was on also ended up “hung”. We all agreed on what probably happened, but we couldn’t agree on what constituted “resisting arrest”. The defendant had been speaking to one police officer. A second arrived on the scene -possibly jumping over a hedge- and the defendant started running. The second police officer chased him, pinned him down and the defendant tried to fight him off.

So was this “resisting arrest”? As I recall, we wanted a legal definition of what constituted “resisting arrest” but ended up having to use something like what reasonable people would think it was. And we disagreed. The retired military types said that the minute a law enforcement person looked you in the eye, you were obligated to offer to answer any questions. (Ok- that is exaggerating just a bit, but you get the idea.)

About half of us thought that because the defendant was willingly talking to the first officer, he was startled by the second officer who had rushed onto the scene from behind a hedge and that his response was more of a natural response and not resisting arrest.

No amount of rational argument or discussion could bring us together- because we were hung on something that was pretty subjective.

The “reasonable doubt ” question gave me a few worries. But I was glad to see the way that question was framed.

The present questions seem to have much less reason to be worried. They are an attempt to clearly define the charges and to define the evidence to be used to determine those charges. It is more objective than subjective. A logical, rational person can move this foreward.

Well the Jurors have their “tonight’s the night” clothes on- so maybe that’s a good sign!

Bout time for this sucker to be over.

There was a great 20 point breakdown of Count 3 on a Talk Left thread last night, about why it would cause such confusion and why Fitz would put such an awkward count amoung the other four tightly constructed and written counts. I went to find it a minute ago to link to it, but it’s now gone.

Anyway, it essentially said that it was a lemon of a Count for a reason – that (as Marcy & other’s have speculated) the jury may very well consider Libby not guilty on this particular count. The comment then went on to list all the reasons why this would be a good thing (for instance – innoculating against the appeal process).

The bottom line of the commenter’s perspective was that Count 3 is a bear that the jury will struggle with it for a while – but that the struggle will help them clarify any remaining issues about the other counts.

I have no idea whether this is an accurate breakdown of Count 3, but it made sense to me and others. Are there any lawyers here who would care to comment on the thinking around why Fitz would include Count 3?

stomper @
113

for clarity, the judge should instruct – libby may lie all he wants to cooper without penalty, however, he must be truthful in the recounting of his lies to the fbi.

whether libby was lying to cooper when he said reporters were telling him these things, or that he was lying when he said he didn’t know if it were true is beside the point (goes to things not covered by this trial). it is whether these statements were ever uttered from libby’s mouth, and whether libby deliberately said these things to the fbi if he knows they never occurred, truthful or otherwise.

Exactly! If Libby had said to the FBI…look “I lied to Cooper about this conversation…I actually KNEW that Plame was a CIA employee at that time and was intent on deceiving him to get him to check it out and report on it”. IF he had said this to the FBI he would be okay.

But he was using a conversation, one that Cooper said is utterly ficticious, to actually SUPPORT his assertion to the FBI that Libby, in fact, didn’t recall his earlier conversation with Cheney and others about Plame’s employment.

Therefore, it’s his lie to the FBI that is the CHARGE. That’s the obstruction of justice element. It seems to me that the crux of the Cooper statement is the part where he says “”that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.”

That’s the deception to the FBI…and it really doesn’t matter much if a) the conversation went as he stated or, b) the conversation went as Cooper stated.

If (a)the jury holds using other evidence from his GJ statement and other witnesses, for example, that at the time Libby was already cognizant of Plame’s status, and he intentionally “used” Cooper – and then told this tale to the FBI to imply that he was, in fact, ignorant of the status of Plame. Then he’s guilty of the count.

If (b) they find that Libby contrived the content of the Cooper conversation, and used this fiction to advance his argument to the FBI that he was ignorant of Plame’s relationship at the time because he made this statement…then he is still lying.

In either scenario they must find Libby GUILTY of the deception to the FBI. This would be true whether or not they gave the conversation “He said-He Said” status as long as the found that Libby was cognizant, and hadn’t forgotten his ADMINISTRATION SOURCING of the Plame association with the CIA on the date of the Cooper conversation.

If the believe he had forgotten all this then they could still find him guilty if they think he lied to the FBI about the contents of the Cooper conversation in order to proclaim his innocence….in other words by creating a false fact when he actually was innocently forgetful. But THAT wouldn’t be charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I think that the latter must be willful.

If they have, in fact, decided Libby lied on the other counts and did remember his sourcing of the Plame information from Cheney or someone else in the Administration then they must find him guilty IMO.

p.lukasiak @ 172

Is gabbly up? I need somewhere to bitch about concern trolls that are showing up here! :)

Yes – I agree, but they are so obvious it’s pathetic. They want to steer the thread in a particular way (i.e. panic and despair). What I love is that most people are just ignoring them.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

viget @
123

WRT the lawyer and reasonable doubt–

My guess is that the lawyer is the forewoman (I think the lawyer’s a woman). I think she’s been leading the discussions and trying to be the arbiter among the factions. So, she may not have wanted to weigh in with her opinion regarding reasonable doubt, OR she did, and some holdout faction just wanted to hear it from the judge. Hence the exasperation with that note.

You have to remember that jurors cannot use their OWN professional knowledge to answer questions of that nature. They have to set such specialized training aside in deliberations. That was part of the Court’s instructions to the jurors.

Basically, the charges are all about lying to the prosecutor and his agents in an attempt to cover up an egregious national security breach for the purpose of besmirching a political opponent to their nefarious agenda. Perhaps Judge Walton could’ve summarized his answers that way.

This clarification by Walton nails it

Concerning the false statement to the FBI charged in Count Three, you may consider Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony in March 2004, along with all other evidence admitted at trial, to the extent you find it helpful in deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements as described in the instructions.

Since the jury can now clearly use evidence that has been presented from 8 witnesses and innumerable documents that by the time of the Cooper conversation that Libby did not forget that “Plame worked at the CIA”…and that his sole source of that information wasn’t from Reporters (in fact he also said that he had talked to Rove, who knew!)…that it was incredible that he would tell the FBI this whopper that he “forgot”.

The jury will find that Cooper was most likely far more credible as a witness…and that based upon the accessory evidence, that it was Libby that lied about the content of the conversation with Cooper.

Verdict is in!

to be announced at noon-ish!

WigWam,

Progressives should not try to indict Bush with this mess, but rather Ronald Reagan and his nonsense about privatization and the “miracle of free enterprise.” Progressives will never again have to run against Bush, but they are forever running against Reagan, whether they know it or not.

Excellent Point!

Looks like the jury had already reached their decision and was asking all the questions to make sure they didn’t miss anything or to help out confused jurors. I apologize for all my mean comments about them!:) (unless they find him not guilty on all counts) :)