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!

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.

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.

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…

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.

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?