Powered by TypePad

« You're Damn Right I Ordered The Code Red! | Main | Libby - A Quick Review Of the Damage Done »

January 18, 2007



How many premeptories..I think 6 for defense 4 for prosecution.
as I was switching threads..another juror came up , said he could not fairly judge and was excused.

It's getting rowdy in the media room with people setting their stop watches to see how long that jurors take before being excused.

New juror up.


Juror was a contractor at the ITC (Steel Report) and handled classified info--designed cover for the report.

Used to be a Guardian Angel--patrolled metro trains. Wouldn't cause him to favor either side.

Is an ex-offender..Bank fraud.


Looking forward to your reports clarice.

...and good luck!


Juror back on stand..Conviction was a felony and in federal system
"Nine out of ten" goes the cry..So far only one person made it thru the gauntlet.


Next juror prefers to answer quentions in bench conference. Scrambler on.

Other Tom

I believe that if Wells is going to appeal on the grounds of inability to empanel an impartial jury, he has to make and lose a number of challenges for cause. Has he made any yet? If so, what results?


Heard or read about case

"he said. she said" that's all-"just general"

Remember name is "Valerie Wilson"
"She was an agent and someone named her,,it wasn't supposed to come out"

Reporters all talked about it so she has no prejudice..media coverage has no impact on her."Govt should prove whether he's guilty or not"

aughter is a D>C> policeman..Grand daughter applied for similar position in Virginia.

Fact that witness is a law enforcement officer wouldn't cause her to weigh their testimomny differently.

Has served as juror before.Grand jury.
Her son was before judge Walton in DC Superior Court and was charged with "drugs", pled guilty and went to jail.
She said it was her son's fault.

He did time again

She is a retired postal worker.
She reads Wa Po and watches news--never sees MTP because she's in church then.


Libby counsel: Asked about her knowledge of Wilson/Plame. She saw Wilson on tv.

No opinions about credibility of Bush administration.

Memory--She has had experience where she insisted something happened one way and the other person remembers it another way..She says both could be mistaken.


It appears we have a second juror today--there's excitement in the media room (though still some concern that 2 selected have been removed without our knwledge for personal reasons--at least that 's the body language take of an earlier bench conference).


Another juror..

Laughs and says "I don't think the media would have any effect on my opinions"
Reads paper , watches tv news
Describes his knowledge of the case as one of a
CIA operative whose name wasleaked to press..not clear who did what.."fairly confusing"

He doesn't let media shape his opinions..Doesn't have facts..doesn't know if Libby is guily or innocent.

Best friend is highway patrol officers..friends in FBI, secret service--

thinks he can be fair

Grew up outside SF
UC Davis BS in poli sci
Worked in various jobs--now works for Natl Academy of Science.Chartered by govt..lot os survey and economic stuff as it relates to public policy.

Worked on some DoD projects--analytical re testing


Reads NYT,SF Chronicle sometimes sees MTP and PBS.

Doesn't care what he's heard about them--Knows Mikller was incarcerated for a few months for refusing to give up a source..Read various Columnists at NYT critical of her and her coverage of the war..reads it for entertainment..

No opinion on whether Miller should have been subpoenaed in the first place..
Nor whther she should have resisted the subpoena


Juror's view is that reporters should be subpoenaed only as a last resort.


Thank you for carrying JOM's banner into battle.
We are so proud of you. Your minute by minute commentary is giving us a real window into the courtroom. Thanks again for your dedication and willingness to take this on.

Lew Clark

What is frightening here is that the MSM has apparently done their job. They have convinced the public that this is about violation of the IIPA. So all Fitz has to do is prove that Libby was not the first, but was the first to do it maliciously and is therefore guilty of violating the IIPA and needs to go to jail.
If defense is not allowed to prove she was not covert, this get scary.


Wells:Goes into background of case--that is of the statements at issue--asks about whether Bush administration was candid about the reasons for going to war?Witness:
Says they were not..Can't say for sure but feels they were careless with the military--

Wells:Credibility of VP Cheney
Witness: answer is rambling..Wells bores in..witness thinks Cheney has credibility problems re the war..


Wells tries to bore in more..Fitz objects and bench conference and scrambler--


Here's why it's a cliff hanger..The court doesn't sit on Fri..If they cannot get the full pool of 36 by the end of the week, they may have to start all over again with a fresh batch of 60 potential An update on preemptory challenges..The defense gets TEN and the prosecution gets SIX..

Anyway, you get the idea--we are trying very hard to establish what we need and when we'll get there..a statistician in the room thinks we will not make it with this panel


Perhaps that's a good thing.

Thanks for live-blogging it for us.


** they may have to start all over again with a fresh batch of 60 potential JURORS***

Wells: probing more re how he'd judge Cheney's testimony..His scepticism--stems from "hyperbole" about danger..Cheney was "careless' and
stretched" re the threats..Thinks that wouldn't apply to what he says about Wilson..Would weigh his testiomny just like anybody else..
Lot's of body language with this witness for Libby's experts to weigh.

Wells: If you were Libby weighing whether he should sit on the jury..Witness says he thinks he could be fair and impartial

Doesn't read blogs..


Thought Libby guilty more often than he thought him innocent--refers to a Cooper appearance on Charley Rose..

Maybe 60/40 in faqvor of guilty..(May or June)
Wells: You could put that 80 to one side?
Juror: Knows he'd have to put that to one side

Wells;Discussions with friends about Libby? Talks about politica almost daily..

Juror:Said on at least one occasion he said Libby was guilty--possibly more than once.

Rick Ballard

I believe that the correct cite for challenges is here.

Chapter 24... (b) Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors specified below. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly....

(2) Other Felony Case. The government has 6 peremptory
challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.

I haven't examined the local rules.


Juror vague re about who Armitage is and what
Watched Fitz' press conference..Has no opinion of Fitz.

Saw pbs show very critical of Administration and the war..Particularly critical about Cheney And Libby says Wells..
Witness remembers it was critical of Cheney, doesn't recall how it dealt with Libby.


Thanks, Rick and Maryrose..

I hope my typing is not driving everyone insane.

Seems this guy made the preliminary potential jury panel..

I am glad I do not have to make these decisions..Corn and I agree this last guy may well be out on as preemptory challenge--I told Corn this looked like one of his readers.


I told Corn this looked like one of his readers.

Did he comment? ::grin::


2 media at a time go into the courtroom where they can see more than we do and upon their return report what we've missed. Last cadre just reported Libby seems relaxed and is drinking lots of water--no idea if it was imported or domestic though, in case this is important to you.


A lot of the people are very nice and taking the blogging thing nicely. Amy Goldstein of the Was Po made it a point to introduce herslf to me. (Classy) Though when I mentioned JOM and AT I am certain I got a blank stare in response.

TM..Do something outrageous to get us a higher profile, PLEASE.

Count shouted out around the room--"Nine out of the 12 rejected today ..There are4 11" potentials left..Nine have to make it or this entire panel is scratched.Or so I'm told.


wow..these jurors just eat up on MSM garbage don't they?

glad u r there Clarice!


I missed if CIA/daycare person made it on to the jury.


Next jury:
Read papers
Realls that defendant was alleged to have given the name of a CIA agent to a person--a journalist..person who was identified was --was done in retaliation for her husband;s statements.

J remiknds her that Libbby isn't charged with that.
She was unaware ofr that.

J explains again what this case is about.
Asks if she could put out of her mind what she heard in the media..she says she can..

Doesn't have opinion on lIBBY'S guilt now ..(Woman is very dramatic--refers to self as :one" Has a Bostonish accent..)

Cousin is a police officer..
We are laughing at this drama queen--she sounds like she's chewing the scenery in an amateur production of The Little Foxes ..
Was mugged 3 times..


refers to self as :one" Has a Bostonish accent.



ooh. Found it on the other thread.


Mills College,NYU, PhD in Art History from London Univ..Grew up in NY..

Worked at Metropolitan museum..research and writes full time

Doesn't read papers daily--NYT and Wa Po.

Flips thru them.

She recognized mugger on street and didn't inform the police--should have.(wandering--the Ct is interested in whether she harbors resentment against police)
Never watches TV news.

Fitz==asking whether she could put asider her opinions on the war--Juror question too long nd complex or her.
Laughter here.
Fitz redoes it.She says she has a m,oral responsibility to ignore her views.
Libby's counsel on now:Juror
Never watches MTP; never testified in Court;
Read knows that Libby was alleged to have disclosed the name.
Says she can give Libby presumption of innocence.
Witnesses memory disputes among her married friends all the time..She's still on


Pass the pine tar to C! In the final lineup!

This is like turning off the TV commentary to game and getting the local radio commentary instead... Go C! Sonny Jurgenson and Sam Huff on Redskins radio never sounded as welcome.


Fitz==asking whether she could put asider her opinions on the war--Juror question too long nd complex or her.

Libby's thinking "tell me about it."


Next witness up a teacher at a charter school..
Libby's counsel:
Probes what she knows about about Scooter Libby..She says just the name..
Memory conflict question--she thinks it's altogether possible that people can remember conversations differently and not be lying.

Opinions about credibility of Cheney--says she has none.
Teaches 7th and 8th grade at public charter school.

Fitz--how do you tell if an account was wrong because it was a lie or an honest mistake--She saysw with people she knows she relies on their reputations, in other cases she'd have to look at the record.

She made it it appears.



Are the jurors able to hear each other? Or are they taking them in one at a time?


Next juror--been arrested four times--and it was never him--has bad opinion of LE..Bench conference and scrambler on.


We are still in the dark about the actual numbers..but we think we need to get 7 out of the next 8 or this panel is over..
And an entire new panel will have to be brought in..

There was some mumbling that J Waltom excused 40 of the 100 potentials who showed up at the outset and that he may have been far too optimistic.

Next juror.

Fiance is an atty who is assisting in representation of Woodward in connection to thiws case.Works for Howard Shapiro and was present at deposition of Woodward--Said she gave him no further details.

Can be fair and wouldn't discuss case with his fiance.

One of attys he works for is acquainted with Jeffrees(sp)


Sue, the jurors are brought in separately..

Juror does general litigation including some criminal cases..

Other Tom

I believe that all the prospective jurors are hearing the Q and A's of those who are being voire dired.

The idea that they have to get a full jury out of this batch or start fresh next week is a new one to me. Can anyone present with Clarice confirm that?


Okay. Thanks.


The idea that they have to get a full jury out of this batch or start fresh next week is a new one to me.

Me too, but I don't know very much about Federal rules and I know even less about criminal rules.


Clarice - If you ever need as assistant - I would love to work for you. You are my hero.


BTW Fitz' questions are terribly compound and comples. Libby's lawyers questions--and the judge's--are short and crisp and easy to understand.
Juror is applying for a security clearaqnce in connection with a case.

There are no windows in this room. It's cheaply constructed with fake paneling, stained wall ceilings and fluorescent light.
It's like being in jail or middle school.

Juror has assisted in gj proceedings and military court martial..Attended Duke law school.


OT--I think that new panel thingy is a local rule--one day , one trial..If you are not picked for a potential juror on the day you show up, you are excused..this group (all from the original cadreof 60) must form the pool for this trial --they cannot be held over and combined with another pool of people called in for next week.


OT--The other jurors are in a different room in the courthouse and do not hear these potential jurors questions and answers at voir dire.
If jurors make it thru this it seems they are sent to another room. If they are excused they report to the clerk and are tagged out of the system.


he went thru an elaborate story of his general sense of the case--it was quite detailed..formed no opinion of it because it seemed "all over the place" and "unclear".

Remembers these names being discussed:Bush, Cheney,. Libby, Andrew Card, Novak and Cooper (only 2 reporters' names he remembers).

Remembers discussion about reporters' being compelled to testify.
Remembers a "female reporter" and Cooper refused to answer certain questions and that it was resolved but doesn't recall how it was resolved.Knows it's not a recognized privilege..

Circumstances of Woodward's deposition.
Thought it was extraordinary in a criminal case for a witness to give tesimony in a deposition and not before a gj.
Believes Woodward said he's received this info on Plam'es id..doesn't remember who he received it from--remembers it was someone in the administration.


More questions from Fitz to find out depth of interesat and knowledge--Juror admits he read the indictment some time ago.

It was attached to a website.
Reads blogs..

Glenn Reynolds (instapundit); TPM; Daily Kos, Volokh and some legal blogs;


This should be interesting. Will they allow someone that admits to reading blogs to sit on a jury? I can't wait to find out.


Doesn't know if fiance will be in ct room when Woodward testifies; wouldn't treat matter any differently if she were.
Reads Wa Po, sports pp of Nashville papers(home town) --ocassionally NYT or WSJ..

Doesn't recall reading editorial pp of WaPo and Remembers Novak column ann Wilson op ed but didn't read those articles.


He's representing military guys in ct martial charged with killing Iraqi dcivilians.

Just happens to be involved inthis case.

Application for security clearance is in connection with that case.

Libby lawyer:
establishes both guy and his fiance are young associates.
Juror thinks that administration was less than entirely forthcoming but doesn't rise to level critics say.
Thinks there were good reasons for war--faults them for poorly communicating their views.


With as narrow as Fitz and the judge want to play this case, I would think Richard Armitage would qualify as a juror....


I've developed a little crush on this potential juror.


Thanks for doing this Clarice; I was forced over to FDL because that was the only site I knew of that was providing live information. It was pretty much a waste of time. BTW: They just put up a link to your live blog on the FDL site.


Cheney's not his favorite politician but would never assume that he (or any other official in that position)would be willing to commit perjury..would treat him like any other witness..use what he says and how to judge his credibility.
Misremembered conversations--acknowledges this happens with his fiance.
Rarely watched MTP.
Would weigh Miller, Russert and Cooper just like any other witness.

Fitz on memory--how wld you decide if lie or intentional mistake--Juror: demeanor, plausibility (could he confuse it as he said --was it reasonable and understandabl

Wells again:

On innocent mistake or lie--Understands that Libby is presumed innocent..and jury's job is to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that intentional false statements were made.


Sounds like Fitz thinks that a jury consisting of Bush and Cheney haters would be totally fair.

Great job, Clarice.


Guy's in...

Tom Maguire

Re: Doesn't read blogs..

Is that question asked always, sometimes, or rarely? Or was it on the questionaire?

And let's have a "speak now or forever hold your peace" moment - staring at my Typepad account, I see that I can set up guest bloggers very easily (well, it *looks* easy.)

Not that we will be picking out drapes, but I am strongly inclined to set up a guest account for Clarice and invite her to use it during the trial - my guess is that it would be easier and more readable than hitting the comments.

(Hmm, I feel like the Boise State player after the game...)


"speak now or forever hold your peace"

Put me in the column of holding my peace. Whatever floats your boat, Cap'n.


-- Or was it on the questionaire? --

The string "blog" (in any combination of case, e.g., BLOG, Blog, blog) does not appear in the questionnaire.


Now, we need 6 out of the next 7--
Judge says can't complete this today--only have 30--need 6 more..
Will bring the jury tranche (including the remaining 7 possibles) back on Monday to see if they can get --will query 10 from the original traqnche who'd not yet been given the preliminary questions (So, the scoop in the media room was wrong--there were more remaining from the original tranche to make it more likely they'd meet the process) aS TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 2 JURORS WHO SEEM TO HAVE PERSONAL EXCUSES..The judge will talk to them and try to resolve the issues tomorrow morning..
If they are excused,8 more, rather than 6 more, will have to qualify unless the entire process is void and a new tranche of potentials is called in.


Then she could add to the main entry with updates and still allow comments from others.

TM, Remeber MBA wants a category -- whatever that is -- so they can extract the feed.


Someone just cut and pasted my comments above where I mentioned that FDL provided a link to this live thread. The folks over there are pretty rude about what they have to say about individuals; snarky personal comments rather than commentary about what is actually going on in the jury pool.


TM, that would be great! and much easier.. You can wait until I'm scheduled to return to duty..though.

I'm unplugging heading for my car and home and will post later..
(Shall I be funny and say R"eporting from the Media Room at the Prettyman Courthouse this has been..?"LOL)

trial lawyer


BTW: You're pretty much a waste of time always.

Charlie (Colorado)

I'd go for it, Tom.


Thanks for live blogging the voir dire Clarice. Pach at FDL, who is also live blogging the trial, is taking a two hour stint in the courtroom, so FDL folks are currently sans coverage. Thank you for yours.

While not everyone over at FDL agrees with your point of view on the first WTC bombing and Fitz's successful prosecution of the bling Shiek, Iraqi WMD is Syria, and the credibility of Dick Cheney's utterences, I appreciate your coverage of the trail. Here's a comment from a fan at FDL What Clarice thinks.

Finally, you scooped everyone on the procedure in DC courts that says all jury members must be drawn from the same pool. What's your call, will it be thrown them all out and start over?


Isn't the first pool 100 people of whom only the first 60 are now being used with the other 40 held in reserve?


Guy's in...


If I understood your blogging correctly Clarice he's just about the perfect defense juror.

Great job by the way. Very interesting to follow real reporting on this.

Rick Ballard


In this instance in doesn't mean on the final panel - Fitz will just use a peremptory to remove him when they start weeding. The defense would like to have seven or eight like him prior to Fitz starting to use his six challenges.


Duke Law School, eh?

He may be inclined to draw a Nifong/Fitz analogy.

Thank you very much for live-blogging the jury selection, Clarice. You're doing a great job!


Really? I thought that guy sounded really thoughtful and reasonable.

Anyway, Tom and Clarice....this could be a beautiful thing.


"that guy" being my crush-juror.


In this instance in doesn't mean on the final panel - Fitz will just use a peremptory to remove him when they start weeding.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on where he is sitting on judgment day. Prosecution only gets 6.


If I understood your blogging correctly Clarice he's just about the perfect defense juror.

OMG! What am I talking about? I'm an idiot- yes, I agree, perfect defense witness. It's early, ok?


"that guy" being my crush-juror.

well at least it wasn't just for his body :)


It's early, ok?

Or late, depending on where you are in the world. ::grin::


I appreciated your live blogging. Thanks so much.


I hope my typing is not driving everyone insane.

I meant to comment on this earlier today, but didn't want to fill the board up with chit/chat. I didn't notice your typing but that could be because I have read your posts for so long I know what you mean even if you type it wrong. Great job today!


I meant to comment on this earlier today, but didn't want to fill the board up with chit/chat.

Hmmm...I will have to consider this no chit-chat thing. I will behave.

And clarice, as you told MJW when he was concerned about his ' misplacement- don't fuss about your typing. Your message comes through.


Hmmm...I will have to consider this no chit-chat thing. I will behave.

You never misbehave. I don't think it matters now, the live blogging is over.



Go for it! What are you afraid of? clarice will take the green border-"drapes" and make a skirt out of it.

clarice "Katie" O'Hara. Come on somewhere in Rwanda there is a blog out ahead of you.


I'm always in favor of first impressions and more info.

Perfect typing is about dead last on my list.


Thanks Clarice! Great job.


You're top drawer! I especially love your atmospherics

It's cheaply constructed with fake paneling, stained wall ceilings and fluorescent light.
It's like being in jail or middle school.

were all laughing at this drama queen

You did great. Thanks.


Thanks to you all.

TM has graciously added me and I will check in there. Most of what I had to say about today's proceedngs is on the last 2 threads and I won't repeat them. I don't know when Cox wants me to cover this again.

Let me explain a couple of things.
The judge has forbidden us to do a live transcript. Not that I'm a good enough typist to do that anyway. What I tried to do is pick out what might be of interest to you--at least what was interesting to me. (A bit of the atmosphere in the media room along with highlights of the prospective jurors' remarks.)
Now, to where this heading with a fuller explanation of the jury selection system.

100 people were called to be the potential jury pool. J Walton released 40 and is working with the 60 remaining jurors. But it looks altogether possible that he will not get the necessary 36 (jury, alternate jury and preemptory challenges) so he is contacting 10 from the 40 he released to come in on Monday..in the hope they can meet the target.

If he cannot get the requisite number, he will have to start again from scratch as the one day, one jury rule does not allow him to combine jurors from this call with jurors from another.(It's for the convenience of jurors..and if you think that's a bad idea, I have to tell you the pool of eligible jurors in DC is rather small and the burden can be extreme--for we have to man both the local and federal court juries and many people cannot serve because of their connection to LE, felony convictions, etc.)

Fitz cannot know then whether he will have to give his opening statement on Monday (that is he has a jury pool and can begin--or if this entire process has to be restarted with a new tranche of potential jurors.).Trials are full of thrills and chills like that. It is high adrenaline work.

Some impressions: Wells has great people skills. He can read these jurors. He is a great interrogator. His questions are clean and crisp and pointed. Fitz as I noted tends too often to use complex and compound formulations.

The media work together to figure out what is going on and share information with eachother rather as we do. It may just be an utterly false subjective opinion of mine, but there seemed to me to be some glee in a significant part of the room when prosepective jurors indicated great animus to the Administration, the war, or Cheney, and particularly when it appeared that potential jurors bought the crap line that this was a leak out of revenge.
Of course, it would be something if the same twisted coverage resulted in the inability to seat a jury. I don't think that will happen though.
Fitz seemed on his feet a lot trying to keep Wells from probing for this animus, but as much as Walton wants to promptly select a jury, it seems from what I saw he was fair in striking for cause jurors who the regulars here would consider so unfair that they could not properly do their job.

I saw only a few hours of the trial, but I got the impression this was a reasonable cross section of the city.
The juror who was the young law firm associate would I think meet anyone's definition of a fair minded juror.
I think Wells will be great with the retired postal worker--None of the others selected seem idiotic or crazy.

I haven't seen the other jurors who were selected but I have no reason to believe they are worse than these.

Oh, and just for fun, not a single juror confessed to watching MSNBC or Hardball.


TM, I tried to post on the page you created for me and typepad said the invitation was "invalid".Don't know what that means.


Clarice, your observation about the glee in the room is telling. If I were a member of the media and potential jurors were misinformed about the case because of what they read in the media, I would be embarrassed. It's as if the only metric the media has is how negative the public is about Bush. They don't seem to care whether the public is misinformed due to reliance on their, er, reporting.

It reminds me of how outraged Chris Matthews used to be several years ago when polls showed that a majority of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, how could Americans be so unaware of the facts, he would ask?

The media is pleased that the jurors have a false idea of what this case is about and it's due to their hard work!! Appalling, actually.


Ok, totally OT but...Another two-fold Katie-ism -

Another eye-opening post re: Feminism.

Trepidatious? (Alas, it appears she uses the Wiktionary, not the Dictionary)

"They’re living with their boyfriends, perhaps trepidatious about walking down the aisle given the high divorce rate."



Thanks for your efforts and insight.

I hope you can make it back again soon.

I was surprised at how addicted I was to Pach at FDL's reporting. I was even more surprised at how much more I appreciated your take--biases matter.

Thanks again.


I appreciate your streamlined comments. FDL is a joke. Christy is always angling for some TV job (her appearances on CSpan are embarrassing -- she contorts her body in a weird way on camera in order to look thinner and she throws in "When I was a prosecutor" comments as if she were Star Jones.). The soon-to-be divorced Looseheadprop is lusting after Fitzgerald like a horny teenager. And Pach is in over his head. Some of the posters are bright ... but most are far more ill-informed than they'd ever admit.



I totally agree. And Fitzgerald too. It would be great if Well's could ask one of those many jurors who thought this was a "leak" case , that Libby leaked Plame - if part of their misperception was from Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference.

Was Well's able to draw out from any juror Fitz poisoned the well?


IIRC he asked one who said he'd seen the presser, but most of those who said they thought that stuff was true said they'd learned it from the press generally.
The exception was the CIA employee who said CIA legal counsel told her this was a case about the leak of an undercover agent's identity in revenge for Wilson's comments. (Imagine that!) When pressed later on this,(after Fitz indicated he had no idea what she was told and she may have misunderstood) she said she might have misunderstood what she was told. (Hey--welcome to the case.)

Gary Maxwell

not a single juror confessed to watching MSNBC or Hardball.

Just goes to show what I have said. Most nights the local supermarket has more people than are tuned into MsNBC. If Microsoft and their unlimited bank account were not behind this station, it would close. The real question would be how long it would take for someone to notice. I put the over and under at three days.


So, potential juror number 13,543...were you also tainted by the Fitzgerald press conference when he declared my client was the FIRST to leak Valerie Plame's identity.
When in fact the facts show that was a Mr. Armitage?

Potent. Juror: Well yeah, he basically said your guy did it. We call it pulling a Nifong.

Judge: Dismissed!


This took place before I got there so I have no independent information about it.

Libby Courtroom Revelations [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTlmMGI2ZjZkMzQyZDBiMDBjZTAyNjNmNTYzNmUzMjI= >Our well-informed pressies

A newsroom source relays this bit of news from the Scooter Libby trial: As jury selection continues, five of six questioned today have been excused. One of them was a young female Washington Post reporter (Arts section). She reportedly announced: "I feel VP Cheney puts his business priorities over the good of the country." and "I don't trust him or anybody associated with him and anyone associated with him would have to jump over a hurdle for me to think he was ever telling the truth."


Libby Courtroom Revelations [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTlmMGI2ZjZkMzQyZDBiMDBjZTAyNjNmNTYzNmUzMjI=>Our well-informed press



I'd like to know about the accomodations. Are you sequestered in a room with the rest of the press and a wifi connection? Are you watching on closed circuit TV? How many people are covering the trial, and for who?

I really really like your running commentary and like most people I am good at reading typo so I wouldn't worry about that a bit.

Are we looking for 12 jurors and 2 alternates? Have you clarified whether or not they must all come from the same pool?

Seems as if you were born to do this. Congrats on a great first day! What comes next?


Mathews: And now let's head to our crack reporter Bud Shooster for some real insights on what is happening with the lying bastard Scooter Libby trial.

Bud Shooster: Hi Chris. There was high drama in the courtroom today as Mr. Libby's lawyer attempted to throw decent Americans off the jury and have a show trial like the one Bush orchestrated for Saddam Hussein.

Mathews: Wow! Really, so Cheney's up to his old tricks again. Did you get a sense of whether the potential jurors just dislike Cheney or vehemently hate him for his lying about thousands of Nuclear warheads reigning down on our children's playgrounds?

Shooster: Well Chris, it was a real cross section of America. You had young folks, old, black, white, virtually all walks of life that simply hate President Cheney and his Texas side kick. Its no secret that due to Cheney making up the whole Iraq WMD story, which NBC had never claimed prior to the Bush adminstration, that Cheney himself will be on trail here.

Mathews: Well that's great, and if the jurors won't do it, we certainly will here at MSNBC. So what are the predictions your hearing there, will it be guilty, really guilty, or completely guilty.

Shooster: Well Chris, it is the collective wisdom of the press corps here that even if Libby manages to get a fair trail, and the jury aquits, we will still be able to declare Bush guilty. Its really just in the interpretation.

Mathews: I see what you mean, so if they take one hour to acquit, that would be guilty, two hours to acquit..really guilty and so on.
Thanks Bud, now for some more insight on the wide spectrum of political views of this trail we go to our panel. With us tonight is Joe Wilson, David Corn and Chuck Schumer.


More alternatives, Jane--I think 6 of them.

"I'd like to know about the accomodations. Are you sequestered in a room with the rest of the press and a wifi connection? Are you watching on closed circuit TV? How many people are covering the trial, and for who?"

There is the courtroom where only a ouple of reporters at a time went in . They reported back what they saw that we couldn't.It's the worst place to watch though because you cannot talk , cannot use a computer and if you leave you cannot return until after the next recess.
There's one overflow courtroom with closed circuit tv and the media room with wifi/electrical connections and closed circuit tv.
After I had yogurt and coffee in there, I notice a no foor or dink sign, but others were drinking coffee there. The guard was not there at all while I was there.
MBA has only 2 passes and it's complicated to pass them on to whoever is covering that day. Bob Cox has been working hard. It would be nice if we had a batch and a promise to only use two at a time, but..heck..this is a first, isn't it?

My guess is that there were about 20-30 people in the room.I saw Apuzzo (AP), David Corn(Nation), David Schuster (MSNBC), Goldstein (Wa Po), Pach (FDL), Bob Cox (MBA). I mostly saw the backs of people's heads and didn't recognize or talk to most of the others.
we are forbidden to do a number of things--no transciptions, no broadcasting, no cameras, no recording devices, no interviews of anyone in the courthouse, no talking to the witnesses, etc.

Upthread I gave a fuller explication of what I think is the jury pool situation.

The media room is grim and unpleasant but it's nice that we have it. It makes a big difference to be able to compose or blog in real time.
My typing was particularly bad because I need to wear glasses to see the tv but cannot type with them , my computer kept cutting off and I had to redo the connection for some reason ..but I did my best.


Well, my situation here is better but my typing still stinks--

"After I had yogurt and coffee in there, I notice a no fooD or dRink sign,"


Well, my situation here is better but my typing still stinks--

"After I had yogurt and coffee in there, I noticed a no fooD or dRink sign,"



Were there any potential jurors that Fitzgerald didn't want that got tossed? In your opinion?

The comments to this entry are closed.