Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« "The Note III" - As We Scrape Along | Main | Surely THIS Is Not The Ass-Kicking He Promised? »

February 28, 2007

Comments

WA Moore

Thanks!!

clarice

Damn --127 pp in pdf. Can I keep from looking at it? Damn..............

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Let me get this crap straight! There are 12 copies? Or ONE copy that gets read aloud? Like at the Seder Table. You pass this thing around, and you test to see if your relatives have reading skills?

What happens, if during the "reading" somebody falls asleep? If you're not snoring, it's okay? Are there rules that you have to stay awake?

And, the food is lousy, too? Just the same sandwiches prisoners get, who are brought to court? Two slices white bread. One baloney. One fake cheese? No mayo. No mustard. It's worse than flight food.

Do you think by now some of the jurors are bringing food from home?

I guess WELLS can ADD the kakamamie jury instructions to his list of things on his APPEAL? If it was me? I'd bring in a roll of toilet paper. And, I'd put each one of the BIG QUESTIONS on a sheet. Then, it wouldn't be good toilet paper to use on one's behind. Or worth much during "deliberations," either.

And, to think these people once got to make a decision about red tee-shirts, on the fly. Outside. By one clever vendor.

Maybe, t'marra, they can stop the vendor who is selling balloons. Or, "get out of jail, free' tee-shirts?

My interest level? Close to, and approaching ZERO, now.

Sara (Squiggler)

Carol, the food thing was my description of food brought to the jury during deliberations in San Diego Superior Court, not what our beloved jurors of the Libby trial are getting. I have no idea what they are eating, but I've seen it remarked that they get to go to a restaurant.

Syl

It's only a little over 2 megs. Not bad at all!

birdseye

Pages3/4: "......Your function is to determine whether the government has proven the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt........You alone must decide the weight of the evidence, the value of the evidence, and the believability of the witnesses."

Isn't the lack of credibility in Russert's case a slam dunk? So why is this jury taking so long?

clarice

TM--SD has put them in Word format--they are only 16 pp in length--2 large still to post here. If you want them let me know and I'll email them to you.

JM Hanes

LOL! I'm trying to picture Judge Walton trying to fill in the captcha letters. If the jury instructions hadn't been typed up for very weak eyes and reading aloud, they'd probably take up a mere 50 pages.

JM Hanes

OK, make that 16 pages.

SunnyDay

just split it into sections.

Syl

This is interesting (I'm typing from the PDF in another Firefox tab)

-------------

Instruction 2.03

Jury's Recollection Controls

If any reference by myself or the attorneys to evidence does not coincide with your own recollection of the evidence, it is your recollection which should control during your deliberations.

-------------------

There's that memory thing again.

Ralph L.

When I was on juries in Alexandria VA, we had to get our own lunch. But they were one day trials, and the judges probably didn't want to enable long deliberations. Anyone know the ratio of plea bargains to full trials?

Sara (Squiggler)

Ralph: While we were waiting around in the courthouse halls during my recent civil suit, my attorney ran into an old friend of he'd known from another county jurisdiction. Turns out the friend was now a DA in the county where our case was under consideration. I overheard him tell my attorney he had been transferred over 18 months earlier. He went on to say that in that 18 month time period he had only had to take one criminal case all the way to trial. He was bragging about how he could clear dozens a cases a week and never have to bother with a trial. I had to look away in disgust.

Ralph L.

Sort of like Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men". Unfortunately, DA's have many incentives to plead out. We assumed (in 1991) that the defendants might serve a third of the sentences we imposed, which were pretty stiff (15 years for stealing a taxi at knife point, 5 of which were because he chased the driver with it), which may have scared other defendants into longer plea sentences.

The son of a family friend is a lower court judge here who got in a small scandal because he would routinely dismiss DUIs without breathalyzers, and of course they sent all those cases to him.

Elliott

I can't recall whether anyone addressed this when the indictment was handed down, but in reading the Jury Instructions I was struck by the fact that the Government does not allege that Libby committed perjury when, referring to "the information about Wilson's wife," he told the Grand Jury:

"I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it." (Page 21 of the linked indictment, page 95 of the Jury Instructions; in both documents, statements alleged as false are underlined and this sentence is not.)

I don't see how one can consider this statement believable if one is of the view, as the prosecution is, that Libby never forgot that he learned about Wilson's wife from other governmental officials.

However, if Libby had honestly forgotten about Plame, it is perfectly reasonable that he would have been functionally ignorant as to the veracity of any information relating to her.

It seems to me that the Government is undermining its case by not alleging this statement to be false.

Ralph L.

Anything about materiality in the instructions?

Ralph L.

Elliott, Libby could claim he didn't have first hand knowledge of Plame's employment, so in that sense, he didn't know it with metaphysical certainty. Also, I think the later underlined sentences say essentially the same thing but much clearer.

I don't see how they can convict based on what Libby remembered of what was in his head at the time.

Elliott

I didn't notice anything about materiality for Count 1, but it does come up in Counts 2-5. It looks like pretty standard fare, though.

Elliott

As noted by Ralph L. in his 3/1 12:13 a.m. comment, my 11:50 p.m. comment overlooks the significant fact that the Government alleges as false a Libby statement a couple of sentences later in the paragraph in which Libby said, "So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that."

Ralph L., thank you for pointing that out.

kazinski

Did the defense ever address the problem with the "when did Libby first hear the information about wife", and when he heard it again "as if for the first time"? It seems to me there are at least 2 pieces of information there and no credible evidence that Libby heard the 2nd piece of info until he talked to Novak or Russert. The 2 separate info nuggets are:

1) Joe Wilsons wife works at the CIA
2) Joe Wilsons wife is a WMD analyst and arraged the gig for him.

I haven't been paying attention enough (no flow charts on the walls) to know if the defense ever raised that agument. It seems to me that should have been the key to the defense.

PMII

127 pp in pdf vs. 16 pp in word.

Why not

Jane

Good morning! Will today be the day?

Ralph L.

Good Morning Jane. Let's hope so. We need something to chew on besides each other.

Jane

Isn't that the truth Ralph. The dynamic around here for the last few days has been thick with conflict, hasn't it?

And the whole deliberations have been a rollar coaster ride. It's interesting to look back on.

Ralph L.

You can see why some people plead out during deliberations. They just want it to end.

hit and run

g'mornin

Jane

I'm reading - well scanning the jury instructions. There is a good bit about materiality in there that will please OtherTom, and so far they seem fairly clear to me. I can actually see how the jury could have found a not guilty on 1,2 & 3 so far, based on the instructions. I haven't finished 4 &5. So I'm less freaked than yesterday.

PMII

Hope today is better than yesterday. Everyone seems to be getting too uptight except for h&r

hit and run

PMII:
Everyone seems to be getting too uptight except for h&r

You're an idiot.


heh, you knew that was coming, didn't you. just kidding.

Jane

laughing

Other Tom

Thanks, Jane. Perhaps someone could summarize these instructions for us?

And good morning from the Left Coast. Rise and shine back there.

hit and run

Other Tom:
Thanks, Jane. Perhaps someone could summarize these instructions for us?


OK, here goes. I'll only be hitting on the major items of interest about these instructions......

Here goes.

They were typed on the actual machine that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian would have used to produce Bush TANG memos.

Where's Buckhead when we need him?

Jane

Other Tom,

The instructions are pretty easy to read through. They are not 127 pages but rather about 20, made into 127. The frist 50 and the last 10 or so pages are generic instructions - you've heard them before.

If you want to read the guts that pertain to Libby, I'd start around page 53. It will take you 10 minutes to get thru them.

Other Tom

Thanks again. I've done some of what you suggest.

Today being a new day and all, I suppose it's time for yet another, different gratuitous prediction. This morning I'm thinking they can't be taking this long to acquit; either they'll hang or he's going down.

PMII

h&r

Yes & Thank you.

Elliott

I'm glad you brought that up, Kazinski. I was just thinking about whether Libby knew that Wilson's wife had recommended him for the trip when he had lunch with Fleischer because I think it has been suggested before that Libby very well could have been surprised if, in fact, Russert or another journalist told him that Wilson's wife was responsible for sending him on the trip.

Having looked at TM's "Rashofitz" post and the two summaries of Zeidenberg's close provided by FDL it looks like there was a whole series of disclosures to Libby about Wilson's wife's employment during a brief period in mid-June.

From mid-June untll July 12 (the conversation(s) with Russert was/were on the 10th and/or 11th), the Government alleges that Libby had conversations during which Wilson's wife was discussed with Judith Miller (June 23, July 8), Ari Fleischer (July 7), and David Addington (sometime during the week after the Wilson op-ed).

Of the people who say they mentioned Plame to Libby, Grenier claims to have given the fullest description, asserting that he told Libby Wilson's wife (note: not Plame) worked in the division of the CIA that sent Wilson. However, as TM has noted, Grenier's main reason for being convinced that he told Libby about Wilson's wife is that he has a feeling that he revealed too much in their conversation.

"Rashofitz" contains an excellent summary of Government allegations about Libby giving Miller inaccurate information about Plame's employment. The short version: the most difficult job in cable news would be finding opposing talking heads for a Judith Miller: Credible/Not Credible segment.

Thus, if he hadn't forgotten anything from the June "conversations" at the time of his meeting with Fleischer, I think we would impute to Libby knowledge that Plame worked in counter-proliferation at the CIA and that Joseph Wilson's mission had been tasked from that division. (It is possible, given Miller's notes, that she told him Plame's name and that she had been responsible for sending her husband.)

That brings us to Fleischer, who testified that Libby told him at lunch on July 7 that Wilson's wife worked in counter-proliferation, that her name was Plame, and that she had arranged her husbands trip. Given what the Government alleges Libby learned from governmental officials in June, Ari gets 1 (counter-proliferation) out of 3. Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer, who admits to receiving information about Plame from at least one other source, told him that the wife was a WMD analyst and had sent Wilson.

There is some question as to the consistency of Addington's account, but if we are to believe his testimony, Libby remembered the wife.

In answer to Kazinski's second question, it seems possible that, on or about July 10, 2003, Libby would have been unaware that the wife played a role in sending Wilson and thus would have been surprised if someone had told him about it. However, I have already demonstrated laughable reading comprehension skills on this thread and the eight million dollar defense team did not pursue this line of argument, so it would be fair to say I am doubting myself.

Exit questions on Libby/Fleischer lunch: Does Fleischer's "lucky guess" on counter-proliferation suggest that this really did come up at lunch, since whatever other sources he had led him to tell Pincus she was a WMD analyst?

However, since Fleischer may have only batted one for three on what Libby could have told him, did he get counter-proliferation at lunch and then, as MJW has ingeniously suggested, realize three months after the fact that the other two were seared, seared in his memory?

One last thing, the theme from last year's Casino Royale echoing in my head as I type: Even if Libby somehow deduced from Grenier's remarks that Plame had been involved in sending her husband, I'm still not sure how he knows her name.

Note: The links to FDL live blogging have been removed because they were getting this comment tagged as spam, but they are available by request.

Jane

Yesterday I was sure he was going down. This morning after reading the instructions I had more hope - what I can't get past are the layers Fitz has superimposed - if you say something incorrect, it is a lie, and if it is a lie you perjured yourself -

And then the Cooper confusion of yesterday becomes even more pivotal.

Other Tom

Nice analysis and nice questions, Elliott. I have serious doubts whether the jury could conduct this kind of analysis based on what they've seen and heard.

Other Tom

Hope you're right, Jane. You've probably done more of this than I have, and you've certainly done it more recently. I just can't figure how they've spent five days at this...

centralcal

I have never had much faith in a DC jury, so I have been pessimistic from the outset.

I guess the only important question this morning is what are the jurors wearing today?

Jane, if no acquittal/no conviction but rather hung - then what? Does Fitzgerald get a do-over?

Patrick

My prediction: today the jury will announce that they have selected a foreman, and are ready to begin deliberating the charges.

They will also ask for the indictment, so they can figure out what the hell this trial was all about.

Jane

Other Tom,

I've never had a criminal jury out, and I haven't had a civil one out since the '90's. My partner does all the litigation these days as I while away the hours on JOM. In the course of this case I've found that I barely even think legally anymore which is a bit of a shock. I might be proud of that. I'm not sure.

Jane

Jane, if no acquittal/no conviction but rather hung - then what? Does Fitzgerald get a do-over?

Theoretically, but I believe to my bones that if the jury is hung this case will never be tried again. Oh he will threaten it in an attempt to get Libby to plead, but it won't happen.

Now we will see if my bones are any good.

centralcal

Jane:

"Theoretically, but I believe to my bones that if the jury is hung this case will never be tried again. Oh he will threaten it in an attempt to get Libby to plead, but it won't happen."

Well, okay - but then what happens to Libby? What is his legal status? Is it just over?

Elliott

Thanks, Other Tom. Lacking a map and compass from the defense I don't believe the jury will pursue this line of inquiry, though I do believe everything I mentioned in the post is in evidence

Other Tom

If the jury hangs, I think Fitz's decision about whether to re-try it will be substantially dependent on what the split is. If it's 11-1 to convict on one or more counts, given this guy's zealotry it's hard to imagine he wouldn't want to do it over. Whether at that point Gonzales would recover from his gonadectomy and call this whole thing off is doubtful.

If they hang and it is not re-tried, Libby's status is that he's a free man. He's also hugely in debt, and will forever be tarred as a man who was indicted by a federal grand jury. I don't know whether he would be able to recover his fees from the government.

Sue

Does Fleischer's "lucky guess" on counter-proliferation

I don't think Fleischer had a lucky guess. I think he is conflating memories of his conversation with Libby with other conversations he had. Libby could very well have told Fleischer that low level operatives in the CP division sent Joe and when Ari read the INR he had a Russert moment...Wow!

Sue

Libby testified during his gj appearance that he did discuss Wilson with Ari, btw. Just not the wife. Ari could be having the same problem with Libby that Libby is having with Russert.

PMII

OT,

Will it be Fitz's decision to re-try? I think he would re-try no matter what.

Isn't it too policial for Gonzales to drop?

But it does seem like almost everyone wants this to go away now - except for over at the swamp.

clarice

SD Put the instructions in Word format..I'll pick out the most important ones and post them in several posts:
"Memory InstructiOn
As you have heard, the defense contends
that Mr. Libby confused, forgot, or
misremembered all or parts of some of the conversations that you have heard about during the trial that form the basis for the charges that have been filed against Mr. Libby. You are also being asked to evaluate the accuracy of the memory of other witnesses who testified in this trial. In considering Mr. Libby’s position and the testimony of any other witness
whose memory is at issue, it is appropriate for you to take into account the following:
(1.) Your assessment, based on your life experiences, of the capacity of human beings to remember things they said and were told when asked to recall those matters at a later point in time;
(2.) The amount of time between when a person said or heard something and the impact the passage of time had on the person’s memory to accurately recall those
events;
(3.,) The circumstances that existed when the person was exposed to the events he or she is asked to recall;
(4.) The nature of the information or the event the person is called upon to remember;
(5.) The circumstances that existed when the person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(6.) The circumstances that existed
during the time between when the person was exposed to an event he or she is asked to recall and when that person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(7.) Your assessment of the memory capacity of the person whose memory is in question; and
(8.) Any evidence that was presented during this trial that shed light on any issues related to memory of the individuals you have to assess in this trial.
Instruction 1.10
EVALUATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENT OF A WITNESS
You have heard evidence that witnesses made statements on an earlier occasion when the witnesses were not under oath and that the earlier statements may be inconsistent with their testimony here at trial. The earlier statements were brought to your attention to help you in evaluating the witness’ believability here in court. In other words, if on an earlier occasion a witness made a
39
statement while not under oath that is inconsistent with his or her testimony in court, you may consider the
inconsistency in judging the credibility of the witness. You may not consider this earlier statement that was not under oath as proof that what was said in the earlier statement was true.
It is for you to decide whether a witness made a statement on an earlier occasion and whether it was in fact
L(-Ø
inconsistent with the witness’ testimony here in court.
You have also heard evidence that various witnesses made earlier
statements under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, at a prior
deposition or grand jury proceeding and that the earlier statements may be inconsistent with his or her testimony here at trial. These earlier statements were brought to your attention both to help you in evaluating the believability
of the witness and as evidence in this case. In other words, if you find that an earlier statement that was made under oath is inconsistent with a witnesses’ present testimony in court, you may consider this inconsistency in judging the credibility of the witness. In addition, you may consider this earlier statement under oath as proof that what was said in the earlier statement was true.
4t2 "

Elliott

Sue,

Very good point about how Libby could have told Fleischer that the counter-proliferation division of the CIA sent Wilson. It would make sense that he'd mention that if, as MJW suggests persuasively, the discussion on Wilson revolved around the lack of OVP involvement.

clarice

Description of the Counts--

"
Obstruction of Justice Count
(Count 1)
The defendant is charged in count one of
the indictment with obstruction of justice. Section 1503 of Title 18 of the United States Code states that:
“Whomever corruptly, . . . endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, . . .“ is guilty of an offense against the United States.
Count one of the indictment charges that
on or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, in
53
the District of Columbia, the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence,
obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in a federal judicial
proceeding, specifically, proceedings before a federal grand jury, by knowingly and deliberately misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when or how he
acquired or thereafter disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central
Intelligence Agency, which is also referred to as the CIA.
In order to prove the offense charged in count one of the indictment, the government must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1.) That there was a proceeding pending before a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia concerning the possible
unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA;
(0Q3
(2.) That the defendant knew the
judicial proceeding just described was pending;
(3.) That the defendant specifically intended to mislead or deceive the grand jury as to when or how he acquired or thereafter disclosed to the media
information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA; and
(4.) That in doing what was j us t
indicated as element three, the defendant
(o
corruptly endeavored to influence,
obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.
According to count one of the
indictment, Mr. Libby carried out this corrupt endeavor by making the following three allegedly false statements to the grand jury:
(1.) That when Mr. Libby spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Libby if Mr.
c’2z
Libby knew that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and that Mr. Russert told Mr. Libby that all the reporters knew it;
(2.) That when Mr. Libby spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003, Mr. Libby was surprised to hear that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; and
(3.) That Mr. Libby advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July
12, 2003, that he had heard that other
CQ3
reporters were saying that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that Mr. Libby did not know whether this assertion was true.
To act “corruptly,” as this word is used in these instructions, means to act
voluntarily and deliberately and with an evil motive or improper purpose or intent to influence, or obstruct, or interfere with the administration of justice.
The term “endeavors,” as used in these
instructions, means to knowingly and
deliberately act or to knowingly and
deliberately make any effort which has a reasonable tendency to bring about the desired result.
It is not necessary for the government to prove that the “endeavor” was successful or, in fact, achieved the desired result.
To prove that the defendant’s conduct corruptly endeavored to influence,
obstruct, or impede the “due administration
(Dc
of justice” the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s corrupt acts related to a pending federal judicial proceeding. You are instructed that a federal grand jury investigation is a federal judicial proceeding.
As to count one of the indictment, three allegedly false statements or
representations, as set forth earlier in this instruction, are alleged to have been made by the defendant. The government is
not required to prove that all of the statements or representations alleged in count one are, in fact, false.
To find the defendant guilty of count one of the indictment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the alleged statements or representations contained in this count was false. And, as to count one, all of you must agree on which statement or
representation was false. If you are
(o
unable to reach unanimous agreement that at least one and the same statement or
representation alleged in count one was falsely made by Mr. Libby with specific intent to misled or deceive the grand jury, then you must find him not guilty of count one.
False Statement Counts
(Counts 2 and 3)
The defendant is charged in counts two
and three of the indictment with knowingly and willfully making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations concerning a material fact within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is commonly referred to as the FBI.
Section 1001(a) (2) of Title 18 of the
(‘39
United States Code states that:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government of the United States knowingly and willfully. . . makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations . . .“ is guilty of an offense against the United States.
In order to prove this offense, the government must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1.) That the defendant knowingly made a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to the government of the United States, namely, the FBI;
(2.) That the statement or
representation was made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States government;
(3.) That in making the false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, the defendant acted
wilfully, knowing that the statement or representation was false; and
(4.) That the statement or
representation made by the defendant was material to the investigation being conducted by the FBI.
According to count two of the
indictment, the two alleged false
statements made by Mr. Libby are the following:
(1). Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on
October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10 or 11, 2003, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Libby if Mr. Libby was aware that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA; that Mr. Libby responded to Mr. Russert by saying that he did not know that information about Mr. Wilson’s wife, and that Mr. Russert replied that all the reporters knew it; and
(2) Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on
October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10 or 11, 2003, that Mr. Libby was surprised by Mr.
Russert’s statement because, while speaking with Mr. Russert, Mr. Libby did not recall that he previously had heard about Mr. Wilson’s wife’s employment from Vice President Cheney.
Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on
October 14 or November 16, 2003, that during a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr.
Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.
A false or fictitious statement or representation is an assertion which is untrue when made or when used and which is known by the person making it or using it
to be untrue.
A fraudulent statement or representation is an assertion which is known to be untrue and which is made or used with the intent to deceive.
A statement or representation is
material if it had the natural tendency to influence, or be capable of affecting or influencing a governmental function. As related to this case, the question for you to answer in determining whether the
9-Co
statement or representation is material is whether it had the capacity to affect or influence the actions of the FBI. The test is whether the false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation had the capacity to impair or pervert the investigation that was being conducted by the FBI. In other words, a false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation is material if it relates to an important fact that had the capacity to
affect or influence the investigation being conducted by the FBI as distinguished from some unimportant or trivial fact that did not have the capacity to affect or
influence the investigation being conducted by the FBI. You may consider the nature of the FBI’s investigation, including the possible crimes that were being
investigated, in determining whether the alleged false statements and declarations were material to the investigation.
However, you should understand that the alleged false statement or representation need not actually have influenced the actions of the FBI, and the FBI agents need not actually have been deceived.
A person acts “knowingly,” as this term is used in these instructions, if the person acts consciously and with awareness and comprehension and not because of
ignorance, mistake, or misunderstanding or other similar reasons.
9-9
A person acts “willfully,” as the term is used in these instructions, when that person acts deliberately, voluntarily, and intentionally.
As to count two of the indictment, two false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, as set forth above in this instruction, are alleged to have been made by the defendant. The goverrmient is not required to prove that each of the statements or representations alleged in
count two are, in fact, false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
To find the defendant guilty of count two of the indictment, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the alleged statements or representations contained in count two was false, fictitious, or fraudulent. And, as to count two, all of you must agree on which statement or representation was false or fictitious or fraudulent. If you are
unable to reach unanimous agreement that the defendant knew that at least one and the same statement or representation alleged in count two was false, fictitious, or fraudulent when the statement was made by Mr. Libby, then you must find him not guilty of count two.
Perjury
(Counts 4 and 5)
The defendant is charged in counts four
and five of the indictment with the offense of perjury. Perjury is made a federal crime by Section 1623(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code. This statute states that:
“Whoever under oath . . . in any
judicial proceeding before . . . any . .
grand jury of the United States knowingly
makes any false material declaration . .
is guilty of an offense against the United States.
In order to prove the defendant guilty of perjury, the government must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1.) That the defendant made a statement to the grand jury while he was under oath;
(2.) That the statement was false in one or more respects;
(3.) That the defendant knew when he
made the statement that it was false; and (4.) That the false statement was
material to the matter that was being investigated by the grand jury.
Count four of the indictment alleges that a portion of Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony was false. This grand jury testimony was played to you, along with the showing of the transcript of this testimony during the trial. That portion of the grand jury testimony which the indictment
alleges in count four was false, is being provided to you as part of this perjury instruction, with those portions of the testimony that are allegedly false
underlined. You must review this testimony when evaluating this count of the
indictment.
Testimony given on or about March 5, 2004, regarding a conversation with Tim Russert on or about July 10, 2003 (This passage is from the March 5, 2004, grand jury
transcript, page 146, line 10 - page 147, line 13)
• . • . And then he said, you know did you know that this—excuse me, did you know that Ambassador
Wilson’s wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said—he may have said a little more but that was—he said that. And I said, no, I don’t know that. And I said, no, I don’t know that
intentionally because I didn’t want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he saith because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don’t know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn’t take my statement as confirmation for him.
Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this—you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off- the-record if that’s okay with you, and he said, that’s fine.
So then he said—I said—he said1 sorry—he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don’t know that. And then he said, yeah—yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don’t know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn’t ask him anymore about it because I didn’t want
to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.
(Testimony ends)
Count five of the indictment also
alleges that a portion of Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony was false. This grand jury testimony was played to you, along with the showing of the transcript of the testimony during the trial. That portion of the grand jury testimony which the indictment alleges in count
five was false, is also being provided to you as part of this perjury
instruction, with those portions of the testimony that are allegedly false underlined. You must review this
testimony when evaluating this count of the indictment.
Count five of the indictment alleges that the following four statements were false:
(1.) Testimony given on or about March 5, 2004 (the following passage is from the March 5, 2004 grand jury
transcript, page 187, lines 14 - page 188, line 5):
Q. And it’s your specific
recollection that when you told
Cooper about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters—
A. Yes.
Q. —plural, were saying. Correct?
A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact. I thought I was—all I had wa this information that was coming in from the reporters.
91
Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling
him, you don’t know whether it’s
true or not, you’re just telling him what reporters are saying?
A. Yes, that’s correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don’t know if it’s true. I was careful about that because among
other things, I wanted to be clear I didn’t know Mr. Wilson. I don’t
know—I think I said, I don’t know if he has a wife, but this is what
we’re hearing.
(2.) Testimony given on or about March 24, 2004 (the following passage is from the March 24, 2004 grand jury transcript, page 182, line 14 - page 183, line 3):
Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to
whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the
information from, affect your
account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A. No, it’s a fact. It was a fact, that’s what I told the reporters.
Q. And you’re, you’re certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was
important for what I was saying and because it was—that’s what—that’s how I did it.
(3.) Testimony given on or about March 24, 2004 (the following passage is from the March 24, 2004 grand jury transcript, page 191, line 22 - page 192, line 22) :
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are—concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson’s wife to have been classified and didn’t understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that
reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A. I want—I didn’t want to—I didn’t know if it was true and I didn’ t want people—I didn’t want the
reporters to think it was true because I said it. I—all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to
understand it wasn’t coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren’t true sometimes, or get things that aren’t true. So I wanted to be clear they didn’t, they didn’t think it was me saying it. I didn’ t know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don’t know Mr. Wilson.
We didn’t
ask for his
mission. That
I didn’t
see his report.
Basically,
we didn’t know anvthinc about him
until this stuff came out in June.
I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
(4.) Testimony given on or about
March 24, 2004 (the following passage
from the March 24,
transcript, page 160,
Well, talking to
the other
reporters
2004 grand jury
is
lines
8-11) :
about it, I
don’t see as a crime.

And among t he other things, I didn’t
know he had a wife. That was one
the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I
don’t know if he’s married. And so
I wanted to be very clear about all
this stuff that I didn’t, I didn’t
know about him. And the only thing

What I said to the other reporters is what, you know— I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don’t see that as a crime.
(End of Testimony)
A statement under oath is a false
statement if it was untrue when made and the person making it knew it was untrue at that time.
The making of a false statement under oath is not an offense unless the falsity relates to a “material” fact. A
false statement is “material” if it has a natural tendency to affect or
influence, or is capable of affecting or influencing, the exercise of the Grand Jury’s decision making process. The test is whether the false statement had the capacity to impair or pervert the functioning of the Grand Jury. In other words, a false statement is material if it relates to an important fact that had the capacity to affect or influence the
q3,
decision of the Grand Jury as
distinguished from some unimportant or trivial detail that did not have the capacity to affect or influence the decision of the Grand Jury. You may consider the nature of the grand jury’s investigation, including the possible crimes that were being investigated, in determining whether the alleged false statements were material to the grand jury investigation. However, you should
understand that it is not necessary for the government to prove that the Grand Jury was, in fact, misled or influenced in any way by the false statement.
In reviewing the testimony that is alleged to have been false, you should consider that testimony in the context of the series of questions asked and answers given, and the words used should be given their common and ordinary
meaning unless the context clearly shows
løv
that the questioner and the witness mutually understood the words to have different meaning.
If you should find that a particular question was ambiguous or capable of being understood in two different ways, and that the defendant truthfully answered one reasonable interpretation of the question under the circumstances presented, then such answer would not be false. Similarly, if you should find
that the question was clear, but the answer was ambiguous, and that one reasonable interpretation of the answer would be truthful, then the answer would not be false.
As to count five of the indictment, four false statements are alleged to have been made by the defendant. The government is not required to prove that all of the statements alleged in count five are, in fact, false.
To find the defendant guilty of
count five of the indictment, the
government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that at least one of the alleged statements contained in
count five was false. And, as to count five, all of you must agree on which statement was false. If you are unable to reach unanimous agreement that the defendant knew he was giving false
testimony to the grand jury as to at
z2S
least one and the same statement as alleged in count five, then you must find the defendant not guilty of count five

clarice

InstructiOn 3.02
PROOF OF STATE OF MIND
In defining the elements of the offenses charged in this case, I used the terms knowingly, intent or intentionally, wilfully, motive, and purpose. Someone’s intent, knowledge, wilfulness, motive, and purpose ordinarily cannot be proved directly, because there is no way of directly looking into the workings of the human mind. But you may infer the
defendant’ s intent, knowledge, wilfulnesS, motive, and purpose from the surrounding circumstances. You may consider any statement made or acts done by the defendant, and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence which
indicate the defendant’s intent, knowledge, wilfulness, motive, and purpose.
It is entirely up to you to decide what facts to find from the evidence received during this trial. You should consider all the circumstances in evidence that you think are relevant in determining whether the government has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the necessary state of mind to satisfy the elements of the offenses with which the defendant has been charged.
ØG
THEORY OF THE DEFENSE INSTRUCTION
Mr. Libby contends that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to or did obstruct
justice, make intentionally false
statements to the FBI, or make
intentionally false statements to the grand jury. Mr. Libby contends that he told the FBI and the grand jury his honest
recollections at the time, and to the extent any of those recollections were
incorrect, his mistakes were innocent. He contends that he lacked any notes of the conversations about which he was
questioned, and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events. He further contends that the amount and scope of vital national security issues and information confronting him on a daily basis during June and July 2003, affected
his memory of any brief conversations about the employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife when he talked to FBI agents in October and November 2003, three or more months after the conversations are alleged to have occurred, and when he testified to the grand jury in March 2004. Mr. Libby further contends that when the
investigation began, he knew that he had not provided any information about Ms. Wilson to Robert Novak. He also contends
that he did not know that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was covert or classified and that he did not knowingly disclose classified information about Ms. Wilson to any reporters. Further, Mr. Libby contends that he was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he
testified to the grand jury, that the investigators could and likely would attempt to talk to government officials and the journalists he spoke with concerning
Ambassador Wilson. Mr. Libby submits he had no reason to lie to the FBI or the grand jury, and did not do so.
GOOD FAITH DEFENSE
A person who makes a statement based on a belief or opinion which he honestly held when the statement was made has not
violated the statutes the defendant is charged with violating in this case merely because the statement turns out to be inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. Making an honest statement that turns out to be inaccurate, incorrect or wrong because of mistake, confusion, or faulty memory, or
uz
even carelessness in one’s recollection, does not rise to the level of criminal conduct. An honest belief or “good faith” belief is a complete defense to all of the charges in the indictment because such an honest or “good faith” belief is
inconsistent with the intent to commit the alleged offenses.
In determining whether or not the
government has proven that Mr. Libby acted with the required intent to commit the
U3
offenses alleged in the indictment or whether Mr. Libby acted in good faith, you must consider all of the evidence received in this case bearing on his state of mind.
The burden of proving good faith does not rest with Mr. Libby, because he does not have any obligation to prove anything in this case. It is the goverrmient’S burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby acted with the required intent to commit the offenses charged in
this case. If the evidence in this case leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Libby acted with the criminal intent necessary to commit the offenses with which he is charged, you must find Mr. Libby not guilty

Patrick R. Sullivan

Over at the Angry Bear our old buddy pgl was claiming in the comments:

'All (as in 100%) of the Swift Boat claims were crap.'

I reminded him:

'Christmas in Cambodia, anyone?

Which prompted this novelty from him:

'February 1969 - the Tet celebration. Sort of the Vietnamese version of Xmas. But chickenhawks like PRS would not know that.'

bio mom

My unfortunate feeling is that the jury, who seem to be very nice people who all want to get along, will decide they should split the difference. Give both sides something. That is just human nature. Unfortunately, that is unfair to Libby. That is why prosecutors increase the numbers of charges. They know from experience that they are more likely to get a conviction on something that way. By the way, I am not a lawyer.

Pofarmer

I don't think Fleischer had a lucky guess. I think he is conflating memories of his conversation with Libby with other conversations he had. Libby could very well have told Fleischer that low level operatives in the CP division sent Joe and when Ari read the INR he had a Russert moment...Wow!

It's also interesting that Fleischer didn't go blabbing till after he'd seen the INR. It makes it suspicious what they talked about. He and LIbby could easily talked about Wilson, and he put the rest together from the INR. It's not much to build a case on.

Other Tom

PMII, it's my understanding that it is exclusively Fitz's decision, subject of course to the AG not discharging him. I agree that it would be a huge political hot potato, and Gonzales is not likely to do it. But again, if they acquit on four counts and hang 11-1 to acquit on the fifth (to use the most extreme example), there's no way Fitz will want to do it over.

Elliott, I'm sure you're right about all those facts being in evidence. But I just keep coming back to the fact the we JOMers have been dialed into this thing for a long time now, Googling this and that and exchanging thoughts with one another, so it's sort of second nature for us to be alert to the distinction between "Wilson's wife" and "Plame," for example. I just think the sort of analysis we've come to think of as routine would be a tough load for a group of people who get it all run by them one time, then have to sit down and assimilate it all. I am really eager to hear what they have to say afterward, no matter how it comes out.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Oops, I put that in the wrong thread.

Sue

He and LIbby could easily talked about Wilson

According to Libby's gj testimony, they did discuss the Wilson trip, just not the wife. I tend to believe Libby in this instance, basically because Ari got it from Libby, according to Ari, on the hush-hush, kept quiet for ~ 4 days, reads the INR, hears Bartlett and starts blabbing. How does he explain that? He doesn't. He then claims he didn't tell Pincus but Pincus says he did, but lo and behold, he tells him exactly what the INR said. I don't think Ari is lying, per se, I think he is incorrect but convinced it happened. Just as Libby is. Which is why I wonder how Fitzgerald sleeps at night.

Jane

It is akin to being in hell to try a case twice. Whenever I was preparing for trial I always left about 12 hours of work undone, on the day of trial. The reason was that getting prepared to that point more than once is lethal, and most cases get postponed, several times. Preparing twice actually shows in your performance. You simply cannot do it well.

WEll I couldn't, but I think most lawyers are like that - because the getting up for a jury trial is such an incredible experience, particularly if you have been planning for it for years.

Sue

Off topic, but why is it for the last 6 years we have heard that the stock market does not extrapolate wealth to the average Joe, the fact that it is at an all time high is ho-hum, Bush gets no credit for a soaring economy and the minute it drops, Bush/Cheney are the numero uno reason why? Baffling.....

Jane

Oops, lots of space between the comment (not quoted) and my answer - but the above has to do with why you can't try the same case twice, from my perspective.

clarice

The rule of thumb that was always true for me, Jane, is that if you are fully prepared there will be a postponement.

Pofarmer

Off topic, but why is it for the last 6 years we have heard that the stock market does not extrapolate wealth to the average Joe, the fact that it is at an all time high is ho-hum, Bush gets no credit for a soaring economy and the minute it drops, Bush/Cheney are the numero uno reason why? Baffling.....

Couldn't be bias?

Sue

It has now come out that yesterday at around 3:30 in the afternoon, the jury sent another request for supplies: "We would like another big Post-it pad. The large one for the easel."

Well, I suggest everyone go ahead and get their work done today.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

WHAT IF THAT 'stupid' jurors' note was just QUOTING from the BAFFLE GARB that's IN the jury instructions? Huh?

That should have given Russert and Cooper a lousy sleepless night, let me tell ya! Unless their "gossip" mill ran still. Out of fears of "being overheard," and getting caught.

Let alone, how "PLAM-AY" may have been the invention of GREG-OR-AY ... They think they're so cute when they're secretive.

Woodward? He's got his next assignment. To be as secretive for the next twenty years; as he was with Mark Felt's name; as so many others got accused! Or you don't remember how John Dean got blamed? Or is that BLAM-AYED?

SunnyDay

jury instructions msword version - right click and save

It will open in msword, if you have it. If not, when you save it, save as text, and open in notepad, wordpad, or whatever word processing program you do have.

Sorry, I don't have time to clean it up this AM but I'll try to get to it later. The big doodles on the left are page numbers, I think.

If someone else wants to clean it up and sent it to me, I'll upload the clean version for you.

html version of instructions just click on the link to view without saving.


Jane

In case we missed it - the big news: It has now come out that yesterday at around 3:30 in the afternoon, the jury sent another request for supplies: “We would like another large post-it pad, the large one for the easel.”

From Orient Lodge

Sue

Couldn't be bias?

Not at all. Maybe it is the definition of truth to power that I have been seeking...

Jane

So do we have any idea what was in that Russert CD? Any chance we can get the rights to market it, when this is all over? We could use the profits to keep JOM in ink for a year or so, and throw a party to boot.

PMII

This trial is very interesting, frustrating, unbelievable, and addicting, but at times my mind wonders over to carbon credits - the latest in rich schemes.

Christopher Fotos

Yeah, nice catch on the Orient Lodge post. Additional thoughts from him:

It has now come out that yesterday at around 3:30 in the afternoon, the jury sent another request for supplies: "We would like another big Post-it pad. The large one for the easel."...

There was also some griping wondering why it took so long for this to come out to the media. Maybe some people thought it wasn't that important. Others view this as a bad sign. If they need another whole new pad, it sounds like they might not be all that close to a verdict. It can take a long time to fill up one of those pads.

Elliott

I checked Zeidenberg's close again and it does not appear the prosecution argued that either Grossman or Schmall could have told Libby that Wilson's wife's last name was "Plame."

Sue, there was a reason that "lucky guess" was in quotation marks. I figured he'd gotten it somewhere, but until I saw your reasoning I couldn't see how he could have gotten it from Libby without laying ruin to the defense's theory of the case.

Charlie (Colorado)

In the course of this case I've found that I barely even think legally anymore which is a bit of a shock.

I always thought the key to being a good lawyer was to think illegally.

I mean, isn't that why they call them "criminal lawyers"?

maryrose

If they,the jury are doing their job thoroughly then I think justice will prevail here. It seems as though they are methodically going through the evidence or lack thereof and attempting to do right by the defendant Libby. I hope reason and reasonable doubt prevail and that it comes out right for Libby in the end.
Jane: I was shaken yesterday when you seemed somewhat pessimistic. I think you have a good handle on this case so I am reading your posts and those of clarice very carefully. I am happy you are feeling more upbeat today.

Juror #4

"It seems as though they are methodically going through the evidence or lack thereof"

Actually, we're just collecting office supplies to sell on Ebay later. But don't tell anyone...

Sue

To me, if I was in the jury room, I would want to know why Libby's and Ari's lunch was somehow suspect. Having never had lunch before, suddenly Libby invites Ari. The prosecution wants me to believe there was an ulterior motive. But unless Ari is lying, the information Libby gave him was "hush-hush", or in other words, don't go blabbing this. Why would the prosecution want me to see this lunch meeting as somehow sinister but not question why it was sinister? The only thing that would have made it sinister was if Libby told Ari about Plame and said get the word out, discretely. Didn't happen, at least according to testimony. So Fitz wants to use Ari to prove Libby discussed Plame prior to the Russert conversation but on the same hand, consider Ari a perfect witness because he ran out and blabbed what Libby allegedly said was "hush-hush". For the lunch meeting to take on a sinister tone, Libby would have to know that Ari is a blabber. If you tell him something on the QT, he runs around telling everyone. The dots don't connect for me.

Jane

So is it fair to say there is nothing going on in the case today? We don't know what the jurors are wearing, we assume there are lights in the courthouse, no additional questions have been asked and peopel appear to be losing interest at FDL.

Elliott

I agree completely, Sue. Ari was leaving, Libby invited him to a farewell lunch. I don't see anything sinister about that.

The other talking point I'm fond of is, "Cheney and Libby leaked to his friend Judy." Prior to the trial (not that I think they were chatting during court breaks), I believe he had conversed with her three times.

lurkerama

So the trial part lasted 12 days and we're into 7 days of deliberations. Do the lawyers among you know what kind of precedent there is for such a thing -- for the deliberations to take more than 60 percent of the time devoted to the trial portion?

centralcal

Jane:

"So is it fair to say there is nothing going on in the case today?"

You wrote exactly what I'm thinking!

Nancy Reardon

Here's a thought . . . what if the jurors came into this mess predisposed toward thinking Libby guilty, assertions of fairmindedness during voir dire notwithstanding. Maybe they expected a slam dunk from the prosecution. Now they find themselves where they least expected to be, ie considering a "not guilty" verdict. Maybe they are poring through the record looking for what they were sure they were going to find, uncontrovertible evidence of guilt. What if they are saying to themselves "where's the beef?" I can imagine them wanting to be able to say to themselves (and doubtless the community from which they are drawn) . . . "we tried and tried, but you know what, there was just too much reasonable doubt?" Hence the Cooper question . . . it sounds as though they are asking whether the veracity of Libby's statements to Cooper can be evidence of guilt, since they are otherwise left w/ dueling memories and nothing else.

Sue

I think about all you can say for either the prosecution or the defense is neither had a slam dunk case.

centralcal

Yup - per EW, the jurors are in jeans again today.

Although, the more I think about it, the more I think that when they finally do reach some kind of consensus, I don't think they are going to care about what they have on (oh wait! we have to run home and change!). There is no media inside the courtroom, they aren't being shown on television, so maybe they don't care what they have on when they are ready to announce.

maryrose

H&R, centalcal and Ralph l,
you guys have been cracking me up for days now... Thank you for the levity you all bring to this blog.

JT

Having just finished reading the entire jury instructions. I suspect that the jury is addressing each statement separately and re-reading these instructions several times a day.

My own assessment of this trial is that this is a big mess about absolutely nothing. If Libby is found guilty on even one count they BDS is incurable, terminal, contageous, and far more insidious than realized and total destroys the ability for reason and rationality.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN

TO: JT

Nobody's watching.

For the left to get traction, they need audience share. And, the audience left the theater.

As to the mess that's going on in the jury room, one of the best comments I read said "someone in the jury room spent too much time taking business meetings."

Perhaps this stuff is influencing the postal worker?

But if you think about it; how news flows. You'd see a conviction that involved grabbing a vote from a POSTAL WORKER isn't exactly the kind of a headline that will outrage Americans.

The real disservice happened on AG Gonzales' watch. This jerk was once short-listed to the supremo-s. And, only got knocked off when Bush chose, insteead, to send Harriet Miers up to the Hill.

It seems our president is UNLUCKY, when it comes to shoring up credit with the American people. (Lincoln, on the other hand, always seemed to have lots of Americans backing him; even though things didn't go well for years during the civil war.)

On the other hand? Bush seems to be lucky.

He was lucky as a pilot when he learned how to fly in the old F-2's, which weren't exactly safe jets at all. He took lots of risks. And, always seemed to land on his feet.

And, if you can't win popularity contests, then it sure helps to be LUCKY.

As to the miscarriage of justice going on in DC? What makes anyone, here, think waltoon is gonna have the last word?

True. Libby may be no more lucky than Gary Condit. Where the DC police, including their chief, totally blew an investigation, where they couldn't even find Chandra Levy's body! They couldn't find this, even though DC is probably the murder capital of the USA, except for New Orleans. And, New Orleans exported its trash to Houston. When it got swamped by water.

Natural occurences also happen.

Libby is inside a KAFKA courtoom. While out on the vines affirmative action is dying. How dead is it? Go look for the ladders. Because just like Kofi Anan lifted his up his ass, that proves to be true with a lot of people who are UNQUALIFIED, but who rise up to meet quotas.

So it goes.

This, too, shall end. And, this jury? Probably can't win. They'll be seen as OJ type jurors no matter what they finally decide.

While that note? What if it was a direct quote from the jury instructions? YOU DON'T THINK APPEAL JUDGES HAVE AN EASIER TIME WITH TOSSING CASES INTO REVERSE ... over jury instructions ... than just about anything else Wells has collected for his APPEAL?

The left's not out of the woods, yet.

And, walton should get too excited that he'll get to sentence Libby. That's a long way off. And, far away.

centralcal

maryrose: my comments amuse you? oh dear.

You aren't gonna ask me to put my name in all caps at the beginning of each comment are you? Please, anything but that!

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

WOW! RALPH L makes a great point!

IF this trial had "jail time," and a $1.5 million dollar fine, hanging over Libby's head; you don't think while the "jury is out" deciding his fate, that Wells couldn't crib a "plea" from the bogus Fitz?

Well, that didn't happen!

Lots of trials end without the jury being given the last word, in terms of "decision."

While all "business meetings," fade. Jerks in the jury room. You heard it here, first. No matter what the postal worker and her accomplices, decide.

At least I know to NEVER LET JURIES GET PAID more than the current rate of $5 per day! Geez. I used to think a pay raise would make things easier. But it would just make things worse.

Imust B Crazy

Well-connected, big-time power lawyer and longtime Washington insider has lunch with departing WH Press Secretary just to get Ari to spread super-secret, Wilson-trashing, covert agent outing gossip about Joe's gal Val?

More likely this was just a run of the mill prospecting session by Libby to feel out Ari's interests in order to decide whether to make a call or two to mutual friends who might be interested in what Ari could do for future employment - a meeting anyone in Ari's shoes would gladly have...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame