Jury Notes

Jeralyn Merritt has links to the two notes sent out by the jury on Thursday.

I love the second one, which is a request for photos of the different witnesses - the jury which has been asked to convict Libby for not keeping his story straight can't keep it straight themselves.

Welcome to the club, whose membership includes Bob Grenier, Marc Grossman, Craig Schmall, Ari Fleischer, Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, and Tim Russert.

Well, Friday is way to quick for a hung jury, and I expect they will hang themselves on a few counts before they hang Libby, so I am planning for a result next week.

I will offer this Bold Prediction - win, lose, or draw, Libby never spends a day in prison.  He will remain free pending appeals; if the case is remanded, it will be dropped; otherwise, he will be pardoned. 

And more Bold Predictions - this "investigation" (which did not make a serious attempt to establish Ari Fleischer's or Tim Russert's credibility by calling John Dickerson and David Gregory as well as Andrea Mitchell) is over, and Fitzgerald will not be in charge of the appeals.  Why not?  Well, partly because his own conduct, including but not limited to his outrageous close, will be one basis for the appeal.

Comments

[clarice]

Matt Apuzzo has a good story in The Guardian on note taking :
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Write this down: Your notes aren't as reliable as you think. That's true whether they're scrawled in the margins of a business meeting agenda, typed on a secretary's laptop, scribbled on a patient's chart or carefully recorded from a lecture hall blackboard.

And, as the monthlong trial of former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby has shown, they're no more reliable if the notes belong to FBI agents, journalists or White House aides.

That's a somewhat disconcerting thought. People are charged, front-page articles are written and public policies are decided in part based on those notes. If they are flawed, whose can be believed?

``Based on what I've heard in this trial, I don't know if notes are the best evidence of anything,'' U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton commented midway through the trial
(more)"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6434883,00.html

[mastour]

Thanks for discussing this topic TM. I've been interested in hearing what these two requests portend for Libby.

[Bill in AZ]

I hope they sent in two pictures of Libby's cell phone for the pictures of Russert and Novak.

[PMII]

I think you are right & I sure hope you are right.

I can't imagine going to prison over this. I can't imagine going through any of this ordeal based on the known facts.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Ya know what? I wouldn't be surprised the bailiff got a request for "office supplies AND the photo lineup." And, he had the brains to ask the jurors to devide their requests. And, then he officially gave BOTH NOTES a COURT STAMP.

It seems ALL the exhibits are in the jury room. What they "may" be asking for is the visual Fitz used in his reBUTTal. When he brought in the "photo line up" and the BIG CASE. And, the accusation that Libby was covering for CHENEY.

So, yes. I expect this jury will take it's time as it mulls over the ILLEGAL WAY FITZ BLIND-SIDED THE DEFENDENT. And, waltoon didn't notice a thing.

However, as the days pass, I am sure Wells is preparing an APPEAL which goes up to the appellate division. Where he is asking for a quick reversal.

This, so far, is a busy roadway. It's got traffic on it, (from inside the beltway), and a few watchers waiting for the jury to return. But not a word, yet, up at Drudge. And, most of America doesn't seem to be paying attention.

That doesn't mean Woodward's OP ED piece isn't ready to role. And, who knows what his "pot shots" could do?

The jurors may come out, expecting the limosines to take them to TV studios, and instead they'll be pelted with information that they were just time-consuming jerks?

And, I think that "separate note" asking for "photos," is a key piece of evidence, here.

One reason this visual stands out, is that Fitz shows seven faces. But TWO of them, both CIA agents, are shown with the CIA seal, instead. (And, someone, here, mentioned how clever that subliminal message, to the jurors, really was.)

Ain't subliminal anymore!

Plus, they're not allowed to get it! And, the judge can't throw it into the jury room, without getting permission from "both parties," something he has failed to do in his court room, up to now. Walton just lacks the capacity to "enjoy" V-8 moments, it sure seems likely.

[MarkO]

I am uncertain whether we can divine the jury’s thinking based on those two notes. For me it is particularly difficult because I do not recall the exhibits that have pictures, And, as an aside, I would have thought the jury had all the exhibits in the room.

In many ways this is an effort akin to discovering whether “Paul is dead.” So, I’m ready.

Does the jury really need pictures of the witnesses if they start out believing that Libby was lying? Once they believe that, all that is left is filling in the forms. If they begin with the assumption that he is not lying, then they would want to go through each witness to check that conclusion. But, that doesn’t explain the need for pictures.

If the pictures are part of an illustrative chart (merely illustrative of combined testimony), then they could be confused about the evidence and in need of a refresher. Was there such a chart? What was on it?

BTW, check out Abby Road. Paul is clearly dead.

[Jim]

I don't have to chek out Abby Road, I heard the evidence clearly at the end of Strawberry Fields -- "I, burried Paul.

[lurker]

So if Fitz will not be in charge of the appeals, then will his replacement reconsider dropping the case during the appeals process? Hope NOT one member on Fitz' team will be considered.

DoJ would be wise to be careful in its selection of Fitz' replacement.

Looks like the odds are increasing that the jury will be hung on, if not all but most counts.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Good to see you, here, Mark O.

Doesn't it speak to the jurors' ability to mis-recall? If they need photos to jar them into remember this is what happened, here, when, and, where?

Paul's not dead. He made a terrible second marriage. Linda is dead.

[Sue]

I don't think they need to the pictures for recall. I think they are building a chart. For instance, if you just take Ari alone, you are going to run into trouble. Libby tells him on the 7th that Valerie Plame works at CPD. Hush hush. For days, Ari keeps this information to himself. Hush hush. Then, he reads the INR, hears Bartlett and immediately runs out and says check with CIA, yada yada, to Gregory and Dickerson. Dickerson says, uh, huh, didn't happen (not sure if the jury knows that, do they?). Ari then says no, I didn't tell Pincus. Pincus says yes you did, WMD analyst. Strangely enough, not what he alleges Libby told him. Then you have the Gregory factor. Russert saying if Gregory knows, I know. But Russert says it is impossible for me to know. I'll stop now, since we all know the story and don't need sticky notes, but you see why they would need pictures to diagram the conversations. Names would probably work just as well, but being creative, they decide to use pictures because they saw them during the trial being used.

[Tomf]

The prosecution presented pictures of Russert and Novak. Obviously, someone on the jury picked up on that and wondered if Libby could have mistaken the two. Sounds silly, considering that Libby talked to them on the telephone, but it's apparently of interest to someone on the jury.

[Pofarmer]

Well, there's two things I'm not sure of. #1. If Fitz was a poitical appointment brought on by Schumer, et al, I think stories of his demise, may, unfortunately, be a little premature. #2, if Libby is convicted, I'm certainly not sure of a pardon. The moonbats would howl loud and long, and Bush doesn't seem to like the noise. Now, that's not saying I think Libby will do time. If Berger doesn't do time for his acts, then certainly, if Libby is convicted, his punishment should maybe be getting to kick Berger in the ass for 100 hours, or something to that effect.

[Sue]

Tomf,

IIRC, the prosecutor whose name starts with a 'Z' used a diagram with pictures with the CIA personnel represented by the CIA symbol to further enhance the need for keeping them secret, even though they had testified in court.

[MarkO]

Isn’t there only one question for the jury: did Libby lie? One question. If he lied, he is guilty on all counts. If he didn’t, he’s not guilty of anything.

To me, the longer it takes, the better for Libby.

[dorf]

28 IF

[Jane]

Clarice,

If there is a conviction, is there any discretion on sentencing? One would hope that even with a conviction the Judge would say "no jail time" because the case is so stupid. And that actually helps Fitz who will probably be made to look like a fool should one competant appeals Court Judge get his crack at this.

Then the connundrum is for Libby. Does he spend the money to clear his name, risking a remand, and potentially a worse outcome.

[hit and run]

Time for the important stuff.

Handwriting: male or female?

[MarkO]

I don’t see the mistakes here, including the off the record closing, as harmless error. No retrial. But, if there were, the defense would be better off having seen everything the prosecution had and, perhaps, changing the evidence in Libby’s favor.

[Chris]

I was thinking yesterday these notes were good for Libby but I just remembered the prosecution image that had Libby and arrows going to the nine people. Could that be what they wanted? If so it could go either way. I would like to think once they analyze each one's actual testimony the flaws in their memories would soon become apparent.

[Chants]

Dickerson says, uh, huh, didn't happen (not sure if the jury knows that, do they?).

Posted by: Sue | February 23, 2007 at 07:52 AM

They better not know about Dickerson's denial. His denial came after the commencement of the trial. After the commencement of a trial, the only facts upon which the jury may render a decision are those adduced at trial.

[maryrose]

I see acquital on the horizon. Libby did not lie to FBI agens. Russert's initial testimony to FBI agents has been "LOST". As the Church Lady used to say"How Convenient!"
There is no definitive harm to Val or proof of a campaign to punish a whistleblower. A case of he said'he said/ she said in which the burden of proof has not been satisfied.

[Sue]

They better not know about Dickerson's denial.

For some reason, and I haven't checked back to see if I'm right or wrong, but I thought I read somewhere where they stipulated that Dickerson was denying hearing it from Ari. But, I'm not really sure so I put the remark in the form of a question. I guess I should go search for the answer, huh?

[Tomf]

Sue:

Yes, your right it's not obvious at all that a juror is asking about the possible mix up by Libby of Russert/Novak. It's possible, but not obvious.

[Chants]

Jane,

All a jury does is return a verdict of guilty or not guilty on each count.

If it returns a guilty verdict, then its job is done. The next phase is sentencing, which is done before the judge. Sentencing is generally highly discretionary, even if there are any applicable sentencing guidelines.

[MarkO]

Let’s step back briefly. Generally, it’s just not that hard to show someone is lying. It’s harder to get a judge to do anything about it. It is now assumed in most courtrooms that there will be lying.

Now, look at this case. Just how much evidence and argument and stonewalling of significant evidence did it take to make even a weak case against Libby.

However one feels about Clinton’s perjury charge, it was really easy to prove.

Class. Compare and contrast. Remember your assignment to explain the Mayan calendar.

[clarice]

Jane, of course the judge has discretion--From a blog which specializes on sentencing:
"Because the guideline are, of course, only advisory, and because lots of different aggravating and mitigating factors might be raised in Libby's case, I could see Libby's sentence being much lower or much higher than this estimate.

While we await a jury outcome, perhaps some readers would like to give US District Judge Reggie Walton additional sentencing advice about the possible application of the guidelines' advice and others 3553(a) factors.

Obviously, the Libby case is atypical in many ways, but is that alone a reason not to focus on the guidelines? Do 3553(a) factors suggest that a particularly lenient, or a particularly harsh, sentence for Libby would be appropriate? I am very interested in thoughtful musings while Libby's sentencing is still only a possibility."

Sentencing guidelines advisory

As for the second part of the question, I don't know.
If he's cleared on everything but one count, his counsel may file a Rule 29 motion on that before deciding.

[Rick Ballard]

"After the commencement of a trial, the only facts upon which the jury may render a decision are those adduced at trial."

Dear Juror 7,

While Chants' comment is generally true it does not take into account the "JOM exception". You may return to deliberation secure in the knowledge that absolute adherence to the 'rules of the game' is not, well, absolute. A brief examination of the prosecutor's close certainly reveals his attachment to 'playing by the rules'.

Now, go kick some sand.

[Jane]

Sentencing is generally highly discretionary, even if there are any applicable sentencing guidelines.

Is that in DC? Federal Court? Or Everywhere? Because around here there is constant complaint about the lack of discretion that Judges have - granted I'm talking about state superior Court for the most part, which is why I asked.

[Daniel]

I really like Fitz'a argument that Libby could not have forgotten an important thing. Oh how I wish that were true!
Every three months I carefully place my estimated tax forms in a safe and unforgettable place, and three months later I can NEVER find them. In the old days this would drive me nuts, every time. Today, fortunately I can print some more with my computer. How I envy Fitz that such things are impossible for him.

You know, he built his case on three contradictions (later down to two) in his remembrances. This may seem like a lot, but it also seems like a lot that the Nifong witness picked out three lacrosse players in her identification.
It seems surprising until you realize that she picked them out of a group consisting entirely of lacrosse players; and at least one of those she picked has convincing evidence that he was not at the party at the time.
Similarly Fitz picked his contradictions out of eight hours of Libby testimony, not at all out of random air. If he had grilled Russert or Miller or anyone else including you for eight hours he could probably find at least that many silly contradictions in remembrances.
Alas, I will miss this case when it is over!

[Chants]

I thought I read somewhere where they stipulated that Dickerson was denying hearing it from Ari.

Posted by: Sue | February 23, 2007 at 08:08 AM

Sue, you are correct. I am wrong. The Dicerkson denial is in evidence.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

PO-FARMER, 100 butt kicks wouldn't pass muster. Falls into "cruel & unusual," except in San Francisco bath houses.

DORF: 28-F? Is this a multiple of 4-F (By reason of insanity, and Catch-22?)

Since Fitz' reBUTTal brought in the "big case," there really wasn't any way for waltoon to cure it. Appeals are based on what's been WRITTEN. And, there's plenty of wording, out there, the Appeals Court can refer to, in dismissing/reversing this travesty of justice.

Then? Who'd be the most surprised? Probably the jurors. With their Ph.D's, unable to guess that their road to stardom will even last as long as Judge Seidlin's.

DECODER RING: Going nowhere

Or? Hum The 12th of Never.

[topsecretk9]

It's plausible there is a juror or two just having a hard time keeping everyone straight ( that's understandable ) and so to make matters easy they asked for pictures.

[clarice]

Jane, I cannot recall the case but the federal mandatory sentencing guidelines were ruled advisory at some point--I think many judges chafed at them, particularly the draconian sentences on drug possession.

[Walter]

Jane,

The Supremes threw out mandatory sentencing guidelines in Washington state, California, and the Federal System. Most judges follow the guidelines on a "voluntary" basis.

Here's a link to some of the guidelines that would apply to this case.

[Jane]

WEll that's good news Clarice, and I loved your comment at the website you linked!

[clarice]

Thanks,Jane.

[Jane]

Obviously I don't keep up on this stuff since it doesn't affect my practice. But the more I hear what goes on in most places, the more I think I'm practicing law on a separate planet.

[Cecil Turner]

Handwriting: male or female?

Kinda sloppy . . . I'd be tempted to buck the odds and go "male." And a serious extrovert, judging from the signature excursions outside the lines.

Yes, your right it's not obvious at all that a juror is asking about the possible mix up by Libby of Russert/Novak.

I suspect it isn't, or they'd have asked for just those. More likely, it's to help jurors pick out whose testimony went with which face on the witness stand (probably to help weighing credibility).

[hit and run]

Rick:
Dear Juror 7

Juror 7?

According to my not-a-transcipt of the deliberations, juror 7 isn't the one I woulda hoped for...

And a seventh say "I gotta pick between a journalist and a politician? Thow 'em all in jail!"

I was hoping for Juror 12:
And a twelfth say, "WTF are we here for again?"

Or 9:
And a ninth say, "Wells sure looked good in that suit and tie"

[Rick Ballard]

Daniel,

It's not the gj perjury trap that really counts. What counts is Agent Bond's explantion concerning the necessary refinement of her and Agent Kirk's notes into something of utility in the 302 plus Eckenrode's refinement of Russert's account into another 302.

The 'deep massage' technique of 302 production should be of some concern to the jury. No massage, no perjury trap. No special treatment for Fleischer and Russert, no corroborating testimony based upon 'prosecutorial needs'.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

BTW, check out Abby Road. Paul is clearly dead.

I don't have to check out Abbey Road: I saw last year's Superbowl half time.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Dear Daniel,

Fret not. There will be more. This case is just the tip of the iceberg, in a story that will eventually go down like the Titanic.

Which reminds me of a joke. Just before the Titantic "tilted," the bar tender had asked for "more ice." Last caption? TWO MUCH ICE!

The best "halp" for waltoon, who lacks the capacity for V-8 "moments," is to have this jury, at some point, just throw up their hands; and acquit.

You also know none of them have any artistic abilities. Because even the "art history professor," can't draw stick figures they could then use to distinquish just guilt from innocence. Let alone, the "cast of characters" on this island of dispair.

First? It was started, as was Dan RaTHer's raTHer unusual "investigative reporting," to sink Bush's 2004 chances at re-election.

Then? Kerry tossed Wilson "out." But seemed to reserve his "magic cap," given to him by "some CIA dude." Well, maybe it was just a condom from Val's pocket? You'll never know.

Kerry's best kept secret is that he wears a hairnet in bed. And, his magic cambodian hat? Just a threat to Trent Lott. To show that some of the best senate hairdos could have "covers." While, some? NOT.

[Dudley Robertson]

Juror Notes:

Take the two notes together. Seems to indicate an effort to outline the evidence in detail. Who said what when.

Is that good or bad for Libby?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Remember your assignment to explain the Mayan calendar.

Too short, nice holidays.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Actually, the most fascinating part of the TWO NOTES, is that the bailiff marked them as COURT DOCUMENTS. For purposes of future retrieval.

And?

It may signify a desire by the jurors to get their hands on Fitz's reBUTTal visual. NOT a very good sign of life for this case, on appeal.

[Walter]

Sue,

Tom mentioned that Dickerson stipulation in a post. I've opined that the defense is better served by having the jury infer from his assertion that he told Gregory that Russert could well have known than by impeaching him with Dickerson. Especially since Fleischer is otherwise impeached by Pincus. So, I've been looking for that stipulation. So far, no dice.

Tom didn't repeat it in his summary the next day, but IIRC he has not changed his original post.

TM, Oh Great One! Your* humble servants are confused by the incomplete glimpses they perceive of your infinite understanding. Help us to achieve oneness!

*My son brought a note home from school yesterday. It reads, in its entirety:

Dear Spike,

Your great!

Love, Tonya

So, do I appreciate the encouragement? Or should I be more concerned about the quality of teacher's aides these days?

[clarice]

Speaking of notes--there's a hot one now on the market from Jackie Kennedy to Joan telling her to stop putting up w/ Ted's outrageous philandering and interfering family.
Woowoo
Throw the bum out

[Sue]

So, I've been looking for that stipulation. So far, no dice.

Thanks. And I think you are right. They are better off thinking Ari told Gregory/Dickerson and impeached himself with Pincus.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Alas, Walter, anyone who can tell the difference between "your" and "you are" in contraction form; isn't working school rooms, anymore.

And, let me state, as a lay person, that there's a road to hoe, between the jury's return. And, then waltoon's "sentencing hearing." Where I do remember someone, here, mentioning that could be the place where CHENEY SHOWS UP IN COURT TO OFFER A DECENT TESTIMONIAL TO LIBBY'S CHARACTER.

ANd, the bigger mystery? Now, just when can WELLS punt to the Appeals Court, huh? What if that comes BEFORE the sentencing structure is cobbled into place? Huh?

[Anarchus]

Taking the two notes together suggests the jury is trying to create a communications diagram showing the different links between key parties maybe with lines, arrow and dates/times.

If I'm Libby, that's very good. IMHO, the stories of so many witnesses are logically exclusive that the more the jurors examine the case closely, the more likely they are to decide that it's grossly unfair to convict Libby of mistakes (or lies if you prefer) that multiple witnesses have made.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Hit & Run, you ask if the handwriting could be either male or female? Sure looks FEMALE to me, when I saw the notes. And, then I noticed the makeup of the jury is 8 females to 4 males. And, they seem to be doing their affirmative action struts, taking control of the "pencils of warfare."

No Viagra for those poor 4 men stuck on "that" island, though.

[theo]

As many of us know from experience there is nothing quite like waiting for a jury to return. Lots of free time to speculate and worry and chew over the tiniest tidbits. You can age a lot in a hurry.

On the gender of the writer of the jury requests, I first thought male until I looked closer. Now not so sure and tend to lean female. (Statistically better chance anyway.) There seems to be a hurried quality of the writing which seems at odds with what one would expect from a deliberative body.

The notes indicate serious deliberations. This could cut either way. Obviously they did not quickly decide "reasonable doubt" but nor did they succumb to BDS in the opening conference.

On Dickerson, does anyone know the wording of the stipulation? Could be significant. Dickerson did NOT write that he had no conversation with Ari on the subject, but instead recalls a cat and mouse kind of conversation where Ari clearly was trying to get Dickerson to find out from someone else something important that Ari knew. Is there anything in the Dickerson stipulation that would support the notion that what Ari knew came from Libby as opposed to AF1 reading?

One other note. I enjoy reading the comments here and can figure out most of the code. But what is "IIRC"?

[hit and run]

What to do while waiting for the jury?

How about..........kick Kerry around a little? That'll lift your spirits.

From JPod:

Coming Soon to a Remainder Table Near You [John Podhoretz]

The Wall Street Journal reports today on a new book called This Moment on Earth co-authored by the Will and Ariel Durant of our time — John and Teresa Heinz Kerry. The book, according to its publisher, "combines intensive research with keenly observed personal experiences to present a portrait of Americans devoted to the natural diversity and spectacular uniqueness of our country.”

Quoth Kerry to the Journal: “Teresa and I are writing this book because we share a sense of urgency about the need to reinvigorate grassroots action which takes these [environmental] concerns into the ballot box.”

According to unconfirmed reports, U.S. military interrogators will read the book relentlessly to Gitmo prisoners until they agree to convert to Judaism — which they expect will happen around page 14.

02/23 11:07 AM

I hold each and every one of you personally responsible for not doing more to keep this guy in the 08 race.

[brassband]

I think the request for flip chart and photos probably bodes better for the prosecution than the defense.

Of course . . . from my experience with juries, no one on the outside has any clue what they are doing, how they are doing it, and everyone's brilliant efforts to decode the notes is really pretty useless . . .

When they come back asking for a new definition of reasonable doubt, then we'll have something concrete about which to speculate endlessly . . .

On a related note . . . Did Libby have a jury consultant? Did Fitz? If so, does anybody know who they were?

[hit and run]

Anarchus:
Taking the two notes together suggests the jury is trying to create a communications diagram showing the different links between key parties maybe with lines, arrow and dates/times.

The only thing I'm worried about is that they didn't ask for markers. I think they're in there making over-sized paper airplanes.

[Walter]

Theo,

"If I recall correctly", which is closely related to the (redundant, in my humble opinion) "it seems to me". After all, why bother to write a comment with which you disagree while writing?

I prefer to avoid both, but the (false) humility is very appealing.

[Jim]

For the Jury:

          /\
       __)_)__
     .-'._'-'_.'-.
   .'.'  /_\'/_\  '.'.
 / :/._:  0  :_.\: \
| :    \\/\_/\//   : |
 \ :   :\/\_/\/:  : /
  '-:___:__:___:-'

Russert

[Alcibiades]

If he's cleared on everything but one count, his counsel may file a Rule 29 motion on that before deciding.

Translation please What is a rule 29 motion?

[theo]

Walter --

Thanks. It was bugging me.

I think the use of such a phrase is appropriate when we are just posting quick comments without time to do research. It is not really false humility but an honest admission of reduced confidence in certain statements.

[Alcibiades]

If he's cleared on everything but one count, his counsel may file a Rule 29 motion on that before deciding.

Translation please What is a rule 29 motion?

[Alcibiades]

oops.

sorry....

[theo]

Walter --

Thanks.

Does anyone have the wording of the Dickerson stipulation?

[Alcibiades]

I'll always think of him now as: Tim "it's impossible" Russert.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Wouldn't it be interesting if Woodward decides to press ahead with an OP ED piece, titled "WHY THE JURY SHOULD ACQUIT?"

He's in the KNOW. He has the "time-line" down pat. And, it would freak the juror's out, if they heard about it from "friends," who could read it in the Sunday papers. (To say nothing about the "HOT LINE" that exists in the media, when this crap shows up on the WIRES, 48 hours ahead of time.) So? There's "real time." And, gossip time among the cognicenti. You think we're the only ones doing this sh$t? Some are doing it for profit.

[Pofarmer]

Tom mentioned that Dickerson stipulation in a post. I've opined that the defense is better served by having the jury infer from his assertion that he told Gregory that Russert could well have known than by impeaching him with Dickerson. Especially since Fleischer is otherwise impeached by Pincus

Well, if I'm on the jury. Fleischers testimony is shot. Coopers testimony is shot. Millers counts were dropped, so that shoots her testimony. That only leaves Russert, who was shown to not remember shit plus have lied to Judge Hogan in a filing on the side. It wouldn't be that hard for me. I could nap while the rest of the jurors did whatever they were gonna do.

[Rick Ballard]

I hope the next request is for copies of Les Misérables and The Trial plus a set of darts and a poster sized picture of Fitz.

Now that would be a tipoff.

[clarice]

Rick, you do have a way w/ words.

[roanoke]

Jim!

Geez I love that-heck could you do Cooper?

[Sue]

Does anyone have the wording of the Dickerson stipulation?

I'm back to not sure there was one.

[dorf]

Summary of Trial: Judge: "I don't know what her status was."

'Nuff said.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Clarice is getting the star treatment from Rush right now. Going to link to her AT piece, he says.

[clarice]

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

(a) Before Submission to the Jury.

After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision.

The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion.

A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 7 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion.

If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.

(3) No Prior Motion Required.

A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.

(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.

(1) Motion for a New Trial.

If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.

(2) Finality.

The court's order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.

(3) Appeal.

(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial.

If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.

(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial.

If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.

(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 10, 1986, eff. Dec. 10, 1986; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

[dorf]

Big props to Clarice via Rush. Nice goin'!!

[Walter]

Pofarmer,

We were thrown off the jury for cause after this interchange:

J. Walton: Do you have any other comments that might be helpful?

Walter/Pofarmer: Well, we've been wondering about the rationale behind some of your decisions limiting the scope of discovery and admissible evidence.

[jwest]

With all this publicity from Rush, perhaps Matthews will book Larry Johnson to comment on Clarice’s article.

God knows he wouldn’t want Clarice in the flesh.

[JOM Addict]

Clarice! Clarice! Well deserved props!! Here Here.

[clarice]

Thanks--the kudos go to azaghal . My chief contribution was to check for the urls and put his fine work out there--and to add the addendum which I believe was jmh's contribution.
They also serve who only synthesize and publicize the great work of others.

[M. Simon]

Clarice,

You are correct; the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines are advisory.

[clarice]

I do not know if the Dickerson stipulation was given to the jury. The admission of his original story by Fitz (I recall) was in a one line note in discovery relating to the defense request for all materials relating to the Russert accommodation. I cited it in the article on Russert which I will post when I retrieve it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Well, Friday is way to[o] quick for a hung jury'

I don't think that's true. The case as presented was pretty thin. They've had two full days to discuss it, which is plenty of time to either conclude that:

1. Impossible for Libby to have forgotten he was told about Wilson's wife; guilty, guilty, guilty.

2. It was too trivial a matter for us to be sure Libby remembered, and everybody else has a poor memory, why not Libby. Not guilty, on all counts.

So, I think that if there's no progress by this afternoon, they might report to the judge they can't agree. I'm pretty sure the judge will have them come back Monday and try anew. But, I won't be surprised to hear from them before the week-end.

[jwest]

With the Rush publicity, we’re going to get a lot of new visitors. Let’s try to make a good impression.

Sue and Jane – clean up the front room.

H&R – go lock your aunt carol in the closet.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Too bad the jury can discard all the bum court room testimony, though. And, opt for the reBUTTal, that blamed CHENEY. Wasn't cured by the judge at all.

[Sue]

But, I won't be surprised to hear from them before the week-end.

I would imagine they heard that stories get dumped on Friday afternoons and buried. I suspect Monday in order to get the full impact of their 15 minutes.

[Sue]

Sue and Jane – clean up the front room.

I don't have the delete key. I'm afraid you guys will just have to try and explain me to the visitors. ::grin::

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Too bad the jury can discard all the bum court room testimony, though. And, opt for the reBUTTal, that blamed CHENEY. Wasn't cured by the judge at all.

[maryrose]

jwest:
How come Jane and Sue have to clean up the front room?
Let's let some of the guys here do that.

[Cromagnon]

The jury must be a bunch of dumb asses. If they were as smart as Tom Maguire and his commenters, they would have returned a not-guilty verdict in about 2 minutes while returning a guitly verdict on Fitz for his inhuman bullying of poor little Scootie

[Uncle Bigbad]

Rush has just said his website will link to Clarice's article (called her brilliant).

American Thinker will probably be overloaded for awhile.

[M. Simon]

maryrose,

I'm busy watching the game and while you're up get me a beer.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Hey, JWest, I'm hiding in the closet.

Was one of the best comedy routines ever done on Laugh In. (Husband comes home. Wife is hiding in the closet. To flush her out, he says he's brought jewelry) The punch line is obvious.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Is that good or bad for Libby?

Probably.

[Jim]

Cooper??:

             / .-
             |/,-'`
          _.-'''-._
        /` __   __ `\
   ___ ;             ;
  /  /\    O     O    `\
 | _\/_              _/
 _|_|' |     (_)     |
/  __) |             |
|  __) |    .___.    |
| ___)';   /\.-./\   ;
|~||/\ .\    `-`    /
| \_\/==;'._  -  _.'__
\  8      /\"""""/\   `\
 '--8----.`-`\^/`-`.    \
     8   |   /~\   |`\   \

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Rush has just said his website will link to Clarice's article (called her brilliant).

Rush is a smart guy.

[SunnyDay]

searching for Dickerson in my stuff I found a letter re production of docs from Fitz to Libby

We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. WiLson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson’s wife. Any conversatiocis involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July II.

exhibit c doc 32-2 p 20 letter from fitz to libby advising re dickerson

this is from 1/31/2006 I searched the entire file folder of all the docs I've downloaded, and other references to Dickerson were in footnotes where is news articles were quoted.

Did I miss one, maybe?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

FREEPER's has an open "GUESS" thread. You can reach it by cutting and pasting this into your browser:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789810/posts

By far, so far, my favorite comment says: "THIS JURY IS BUSY COUNTING HANGING CHADS."

[Bill in AZ]

_____
/_____\
|| o o ||
|| ^ ||
|| +++ ||
||_____||
\_____/
/ \
| 1 2 3 |
| 4 5 6 |
| 7 8 9 |
| 0 |
\_____/

Russert

[Sara (Squiggler)]

conversatiocis?????????????????

[Bill in AZ]

_____
/_____\
|| o o ||
|| ^ ||
|| +++ ||
||_____||
\_____/
/ \
| 1 2 3 |
| 4 5 6 |
| 7 8 9 |
| 0 |
\_____/

Novak

[roanoke]

Jim-

Is that Cooper lighting his Bic at a Stone's concert?

These days the hipster yuppies hold up their cell phones.

I went to a Stone's concert a couple of months ago and a fight broke out because someone lit up a cigarette-

I.kid.you.not.

Clarice congrats on the Rush mention.

[hit and run]

maryrose:
How come Jane and Sue have to clean up the front room?
Let's let some of the guys here do that.

Well, I agree with maryrose.

Rick and Boris should be the ones to clean up.

An unlocked liquor cabinet is a de facto invitation. I think it was an error to leave the gun safe unlocked, though. I like skeet shooting but that certainly wasn't my idea. Especially indoors.

I must say, Boris is a damn fine shot. LP's are easier to hit than CD's but 16 for 20 blindfolded is a helluva feat.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 29, 2007 at 04:58 PM

[TexasIsHeaven]

I'll clean the living room and the bathroom and the dining room if I can stay up past my bedtime......please? Pretty Please!

I drank the last beer - going to have to run to the store - - -

And oh yeah - I get a free cape too!

[roanoke]

Bill in Az-

Your Novak and Russert look like a couple of chimps-pretty soon they'll be arming themselves.

I blame global warming.

[clarice]

Thanks--but kudos go to azaghal.
SD you are right. That is the only reference I recall, too.

(I noticed an addendum to the AT piece by Doug Hanson which is in error and I have notified the editor that it is--he says Plame worked at WINPAC and you will recall that the parties stipulated she did not.)

[Alcibiades]

hell, viz. TiH, let's make the lefties clean up. they're making the mess.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Those cell phones wouldn't have helped had they been invented earlier, and available on the Titanic.

As a matter of fact? Up ahead it is entirely possible that the "key pad," going in reverse order, will supply a NASA moment. And, blast off.

[clarice]

Speaking of global warming there's the stupidest article of the day (from the UK)half the children are having trouble sleeping because of fears about global warming.
Here are some doozies:
"The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.

"While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now."

http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=24717

[Bill in AZ]

I think the chimps deleted a couple of spaces in my renditions of Russert and Novak as Libby's cell phone. You're right, it's prolly global warming related - less pixels burning...

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Clean ups, on the left? They're usually just tools for de-construction.

The jury room must be absolutely "a-ga-ga" now over the lessons on how to deconstruct testimony.

If it's a "fill in the box" verdict, where the first thing of business was to "get all those heads to agree," then the format is the tricky part. And, we won't know until the jury sez.

On the other hand? It's a crowded road. And, not just the CIA have links to journalists. So, ya just never know what rock may tumble off the cliff and hit the op ed pages this weekend? Stuff like that can make anyone's trip to their "15 minutes of fame," look like a dancing parade of Valentine wearing jurors. Doing their best gig on Valentine's Day. (Where one lady refused the group's posture.) Tells ya as much as ya need to know about how assignments are being handed out, now, in "that" room.

Wonder if the men are also forced to pour the coffee?

[Rick Ballard]

H&R,

That was a month ago and besides, I didn't do it. I made it clear that the chandelier was Tom's responsibility, too. Not throughbolting a chandelier is just outright negligence. It's pure luck that no one was injured when it came down on the third swing.

[roanoke]

Here is an artist's sketch of inside the courtroom that might show one of the visual aids the jury requested.

It has an "all roads lead to Libby" quality to it. It reminds me of that joke diagram that someone here at JOM linked to weeks ago. [Seems like Fitz took it seriously.]

Link

[clarice]

I would suspect all roads do lead to the chief of staff (he is the gatekeeper), especially when you grant the leakers immunity.

[hit and run]

Rick - I'll have to take your word for it. I don't remember much about that evening.

If it was you that drove me home that night, thanks.

[roanoke]

Bill in AZ-

I think the chimps deleted a couple of spaces in my renditions of Russert and Novak as Libby's cell phone. You're right, it's prolly global warming related - less pixels burning..

LOL! Ya I was trying some renditions and they kept getting altered in preview. I think Jim has ways with the html coding.

[BarbaraS]

Has it occurred to anyone that there was a method to Fitzgerald's madness in his closing remarks? How about this one? He knows that he will be removed from his wonderfule job after this trial. So he says these things about Cheney with the idea it will make Bush will hesitate to fire him and if he does fire him the media will be up in arms because they will say Bush fired Fitzgerald because he was getting too close to indicting Cheney. This might just be a ploy to save his job. Extra icing on the cake is if he can sway the jury to a guilty verdict. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

[topsecretk9]

Cooper??:

/ .-
|/,-'`
_.-'''-._
/` __ __ `\
___ ; ;
/ /\ O O `\
| _\/_ _/
_|_|' | (_) |
/ __) | |
| __) | .___. |
| ___)'; /\.-./\ ;
|~||/\ .\ `-` /
| \_\/==;'._ - _.'__
\ 8 /\"""""/\ `\
'--8----.`-`\^/`-`. \
8 | /~\ |`\ \

I think you need a few more spaces in the cheek area

[steve]

Jim is the new Rembrandt.

[hit and run]

Thanks for the link to the sketch roanoke.

Is that MaidMarion?

[MarkO]

I'm not certain the jury can have that chart.

[roanoke]

clarice-

For a long time I was hoping that the Defense would do an organizational chart for the departmental structure that Libby was suppose to keep up with.

After 9/11 with the addition of the Homeland Security Department and all of the uptick in turf wars that would create-keeping track of who was where and did what should have looked like a nightmare.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Just a guess. But if the jury convicts, it will pick one charge: Perjury. Over Obstruction.

And, if they hang? The black women will be a force to condend with! Not an easy row to hoe for the dames with Ph.D's, who rarely do the dirty work, and hoe anything, anymore.

[ErnestAbe]

I'm afraid Clarice's article will never stand up to the logical scrutiny of Rush's audience. They will never buy the premise that because Victoria Toensing say it, it must be a "fact."

[vic]

soorty to be adamper guys but the odds on libby conviction keep going up at intrade

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/#

was 60 a few daya ago
73 yeaterday
76 today

[clarice]

Jim, that stuff is very good. I am in awe.

Macranger has an interesting point (made as well in another context in the VP's response in the civil suit):
"As we know Patrick Fitzgerald of the Office of Special council investigated what was initially a claim outing a CIA op as a matter of reprisal against Valerie Plame for Joe Wilson’s Niger visit.

However, it’s nice to know if reprisal was any part of the referral (the Corn effect), that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to investigate from the get go.

From the Office of Special Counsel website:

“Who is not protected by OSC from prohibited personnel practices? (such as reprisal for whistleblowing, for which a part of the original referral was made).

OSC has no jurisdiction over prohibited personnel practices committed against employees of -

the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and certain other intelligence agencies excluded by the President;

the General Accounting Office;
the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
the U.S. Postal Service (except for nepotism allegations; see above); and
the Postal Rate Commission.

So how did OSC begin an investigation where they had no jurisdiction, much more a Grand Jury?"

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I'm afraid Clarice's article will never stand up to the logical scrutiny of Rush's audience. They will never buy the premise that because Victoria Toensing say it, it must be a "fact."

Why?

[steve]

This chart?

SATAN-------->Cheney---(Plame)----->Libby--(sand)--->Fitz.

I think that's the prosecution's theory of the case.

[roanoke]

MarkO-

You mean because it wasn't admitted into evidence? Gawd-maybe the jury is trying to recreate it...

hit and run-

No problem. Where do you see MaidMarion?

[Jane]

How come Jane and Sue have to clean up the front room?
Let's let some of the guys here do that.

Yeah - sheesh.

Juries seem to like to announce they are done right after the (free) lunch hour. That's probably 2:00. So we shall see...

[clarice]

I suppose the answer to his question is that Fitz was not appointed under that section--that he was a special special counsel.

Nevertheless as the Cheney answer in the civil suit notes, there is no legal remedy at law for reprisals taken against CIA employees at all anywhere and the facts, in any event, show there was no reprisal taken against Plame (unless there's a super special executive order forbidding her from divorcing her husband).

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: ROANOKE, ET. AL

Since when do "visual aids" go into the jurors' deliberation room? Don't EXHIBITS need to be marked? And, accepted BY BOTH SIDES. You know. BOTH COUNSELS. Who sit in the courtroom. Waltoon just can't be a clown in a black robe, here, can he?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Victoria Toensing has always seemed to tailor-made for Rush's audience:

From Wiki:

Victoria Toensing is her husband's partner in the Washington law firm, diGenova and Toensing. Her practice specializes in white-collar criminal defense, regulatory inquiries, and legislative advocacy. She claims "particular expertise in high-profile, media-driven matters requiring special legal and press skills." She has appeared as a legal commentator on several networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC

Toensing graduated from Indiana University (where she was a member of Alpha Chi Omega sorority) in 1962 with an education degree; she taught high-school English until she entered law school. She received a J.D. from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law in 1975, embarking on a career in the U. S. Attorney's office. In 1981, she became Chief Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where she helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

In 1984, she joined the Reagan administration as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, where she headed the "Terrorism Unit," the first working group in the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute terrorism-related crimes. As part of her work in the DoJ, she managed the government's legal efforts during the terrorist hijacking of TWA Flight 847, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the takeover of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. She also supervised S&L fraud cases, prosecuted nuclear industry regulation cases, securities fraud, and fraud and bribery in the banking industry. In 1988, she entered private practice.

Being one of the key people to help draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Toensing has been retained by a number of media organizations to give commentary on the Plame Affair. In March 2005 Toensing authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists who were subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame investigation for refusing to reveal information obtained from confidential sources. In the brief, she argued that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper."[citation needed] She also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the article (by Robert Novak) that revealed her status as a CIA employee.

[ErnestAbe]

TO CAROL HERMAN

Fitzberger's reBUTTal was certainly a travesty of justice. I hated the way he BLINDSIDED Libby with the "photo line up." To bad WeLLs had his head in his hands the whole time and missed the opportunity to object (no kiDDing!!!!). Now the LiBBy team can't appeal on those grounds. The jury now seems to have notice the photo line up, but too bad WeLLs wasn't able to notice.

Did I mention that this message is...

TO CAROL HARMAN

[Pete]

Tom Maguire since you have in the past quoted Dana Priest as an authority you may be interested in what she said yesterday Link

Pauling, N.Y.: Is it possible that Valerie Plame was covert but would not be covered by the IIPA? Why is it that no government official will comment about Ms. Wilson's employment and covered status?

Dana Priest: Because she was covert! No, she's covered. If she were not, you could not have this trial in the first place.

[hit and run]

No problem. Where do you see MaidMarion?

Everywhere.

[Jim]

Algores internet takes out anything more than one space. However, like Al it can be fooled. & n b s p ; squished all together puts in a space, as many as you want.

As for the art, I can't take credit. On the other hand I can't give it either (I found them both on the web and modified it to work here.)

[Alcibiades]

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

Brilliant.

recycling = re: cycling

[Patton]

"""If she were not, you could not have this trial in the first place.
Posted by: Pete | """

Now Pete wants to say that the judge is lying. How could you have the trial if the judge who is presiding over it doesn't know what her status was Pete?

So you believe Priest over the judge??

And judging by Fitz actions, Libby would have been much better off if he was telling every reporter he met that Valerie Plame was CIA and sent Joey on a junket.
Because if you look at how Fitz has terated leakers like Armitage and Fliescher, Libby would be sitting pretty right now.

Which just shows this was not about getting
the leakers (Armitage, Fliesher), this was about getting Cheney or his office...on anything...period.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Pete, someone brought that up on a previous thread --- in fact, I think it was you. It was greeted with the derision it deserved.

Insert derision here by reference.

[roanoke]

hit and run-

Does your wife know this?

Jim-

Hey thanks for the tip.

Alcibiades-

That's just depressing...I'm off to try to convince myself to hit the gym. I'm going to look for the recycle machine.

[southside]

Here'e an irrational argument that seems to work for those on the left and their appointed saviors.
from roanoke's link I get to the Yahoo slide show of the trial and what do I see but a bunch of pretty sorry looking individuals, except for Libby. I propose given the sillyness of this trial, the jury should acquit Libby simply because he is the best looking, happiest, eye sparkling person involved. It works everywhere else in America why not here.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Will this work?  It's using the pre tag.