Powered by TypePad

« Libby - A Quick Review Of the Damage Done | Main | Picking a Jury: The Libby Voir Dire »

January 19, 2007

Comments

Extraneus

TM, I think you asked for votes yesterday as to whether to give Clarice a guest-blogger id so she could generate and update an actual thread. I vote yes.

shaman ∞

Please,tell us more about the~

SCOOTER LIBBY TREASON TRIAL.

Rick Ballard

Tom extended the invitation and Clarice accepted - it appears that a geek is required in order for proper consumation to occur.

This innertube stuff is great but help at initial hurdles is sometimes required. Even Tom had problems when he lost his a's recently.

Patrick R. Sullivan

This, from David Corn, is bad news for Libby, I think:

'Fitzgerald objected when Ted Wells, a Libby lawyer, asked a possible juror--an employee of the National Academy of Sciences--if this juror could put aside any questions he might have about Cheney's credibility with respect to the war. Fitzgerald wanted Wells to limit the credibility issue to potential Cheney testimony on the administration's reaction to Joe Wilson's criticism of its handling of the prewar intelligence. Fitzgerald was trying to prevent yet another juror from being disqualified because he or she questioned Bush and Cheney's justification of the war. Wells acceded to Fitzgerald's request. The juror said he could impartially assess Cheney's testimony related to the leak case, though he called Cheney's selling of the war "a big stretch." This fellow made it to the next round. But it would be surprising if Libby's lawyers did not use a preemptory challenge to keep him off the jury.'

It looks like the judge is getting fatigued and starting to move the goalposts closer to Fitz.

Extraneus

No geeks here, that's for sure.

Pat

Anyone know much about Bruce Swartz at Justice?

He is apparently Fitzs number two for the Libby matter but apparently he was also the guy who most vociferously argued that the 9/11 Commission not be told about Sandy Bergers document theft.

It appears he leaned way in favor of Berger compared to Libby even given all the damning evidence against Berger.

clarice

One of the top officials at DoJ previously was a Ted Kennedy staffer. He may be the one but I'm not sure about it and cannot confirm that from a quick google check.

Other Tom

Somebody refresh me when you get a chance: I take it that peremptories are not exercised until the 36 are chosen. Right? I think challenges for cause are made as soon as voir dire of the particular juror is complete. Right? And if so, have there been any for-cause challenges made yet?

clarice

No premeptory challenges yet. Lots of jurors have been excused for cause--more than were selected.

clarice

Shuster says re the ongoing question of the no of preemptory challenges available:
"12 peremptory strikes and the prosecution has eight." That's 20 extra who must be on the panel of 12 regulars and 4 alternatives.

Hence the magic number of 36.

clarice

Let me again correct the preemptory challenge number which finally makes the number of 36 make sense.
12 regular jurors
4 alternaties
12 preemptory challenges for the defense
8 preemptory challenges for the prosecution

SunnyDay

Too bad Corn doesn't allow comments - or did I miss something?

Other Tom

Thanks Clarice--any challeges for cause denied thus far?

clarice

Surely--but as the scrambler is on when the arguments are made I cannot say with certainty.

News accounts by others who were there when I wasn't make it clear, however, that Libby tried to get some of them bumped for bias.

Here's a wrap up piece I did for American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/picking_a_jury_the_libby_voir.html

Javani

"It looks like the judge is getting fatigued and starting to move the goalposts closer to Fitz."

Nope. Your average juror is going to be "surprised" that Joe Wilson, et al., itinerant opponents of the war, also thought there were WMDs. EPIC speech nails him, nuancy evasions only work in the MSM ("it's the way (without France) we went to war) Joe Wilson as truth-teller narrative will be bounced again like in the Senate Intel Report. That report temporarily put Wilson off the lefty MSM borg shared false memories, but then ignored. It's coming back!!

I'd like to see the defense go into Joe's pre-NYT article incursion into British politics, and his EPIC call to overthrow, of sorts, Tony Blair.

Cheney will be easily managed. Defense will probably go through a list of ex-admin critics and show Cheney did nothing about them. When it comes to Wilson it will be pointed out he was the one who claims Cheney sent him, and that he said Cheney hid information. Jurors not assimilated into the WashPost/NYTimes borg will get it. They may have anti-Cheney opinions, but it's not tied-up in their identities.

BTW, I read David Corn's piece. He's a real piece of work, and obvious lurker here. It's apparent to any legally inclined mind Fitz' best strategy is to narrow the information, the Defense to give greater context. Anticipating this he has twisted that around, calling effective contextualization an attempt at confusing the jury. LOL. Setting up those Nation believers to close their ears.

Will be a fun trial. All the reporters will be shown to have fought testifying and will be apparent still hiding something, Libby appeared with the feds lawyer-less and gabby.

One interesting

clarice

Very good, Javani

Javani

Patrick, Corn's statement:

"The Libby side wants to create multiple narratives: he was too busy to remember clearly what he said to whom; this prosecution is a result of infighting between various government agencies; he's not the primary leaker in the CIA case; and so on. Create confusion so there is reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally made false statements. But before any of that can happen, a few more jurors have to be found."

That's a darn good wordsmithing showing "context" to be a bad thing. Nice...don't want to upset the Nation readership with facts and arguments. This could be the beginning of an MSM meme on how to not report the overall details brought out in trial.

topsecretk9

I'd like to see the defense go into Joe's pre-NYT article incursion into British politics, and his EPIC call to overthrow, of sorts, Tony Blair.

That's an interesting thought. Epic was June 14th, 2003. Not very often the CIA uses an asset who openly advocates the overthrow of as an important US ally. The UK article was one of the first wasn't it?

Wonder if the UK weighed in on Joe Wilson before he penned his op-ed?

PeterUK

Javani,
It is also a blatant attempt to influence the course of the trial,amazing how journalists can get away with gobbing off in America.
Did the judge oder that potential jurors should also eschew the Corn?

Javani

Clarice:

Top Ten Predicted Jurors Comments after trial

10. Those reporters are all hiding something.

9. I didn't understand. If lots of people were talking about Wilson and wife and Libby didn't talk to Novak why is Libby on trial?

8. I voted to convict because Libby was stupid enough not to say "I don't recall" like the others. He's a lawyer for heaven's sake!

7. Yes we all agreed all the reporters were liars...why is your face turning so red Mr. Matthews?

6. Yes we all agreed that Mr. Fitzgerald's arguments about the high ethics of journalists and their trustworthiness were laughable, only rich wonks believe that..is that steam coming out of your ears Mr. Matthews?

5. I would go to Disneyland..but I just sat through six weeks of it.

4. Maybe Libby lied or twisted his memories because what he thought at first was o.k. seemed maybe criminal to him later because all of the media speculation, but I voted to convict because he still calls himself "Scooter."

3. Valerie Plame? I'd give her an 8.

2. Despite the split verdict we all agreed we'd never trust Robert Novak with a secret.

and...

Number 1...

1. How did I vote? I can't remember.

JohnH

Javani
Your argument regarding how the MSM will use Corn's spin also weighs against your belief that the jurors will have their eyes opened when they hear the details about Joe Wilson. I am not so sure. Remember OJ. I was incredulous when the jury came back with the not guilty. Who knows how this jury will hear the "context" and evidence.

But I agree that it is going to be a fun trial, at least for Plamaholics. I am just hoping for at a minimum some revelations about journalists.

Oh, and by the way, if the "fairness doctrine" is re-instated, I look for lots of lawsuits against the "news" reported in Time, Newsweek,NYT and WPost.

Sue

I just don't think the jury is going to hear all of that. And they aren't going to be able to figure out from the little allowed in that Wilson is a liar. After the trial is over, all 12 (16, if the alternates feel so inclined) will look up information that was withheld from them and say "Huh"?

topsecretk9

Speaking of...(Verner will find this interesting too)

Yesterday, a company that does public relations for the liberal activist political action committee MoveOn.org, Fenton Communications, organized a conference call for reporters and three active-duty soldiers to unveil the soldiers' anti-war group Appeal for Redress. <...> A staff member at Fenton Communications who requested anonymity said his company was approached last week by a longtime peace activist and former director of the anti-nuclear proliferation front known as SANE/Freeze, David Cortright, to publicize Appeal for Redress. Mr. Cortright is now president of an Indiana-based nonprofit group, the Fourth Freedom Forum, and his biography on the organization's Web site says he helped raise "more than $300,000 for the Win Without War coalition to avert a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2002–03."

That's from the October 26 New York Sun - kudos to the only reporters in the crowd who had the guts to tell the truth about this. As of this writing, over 200 newspapers have carried the story; The Boston Globe, al-Jazeera, The Washington Post, ABC News, Reuters, The (UK) Guardian... but none of the stories acknowledge the orchestration of the event by Fenton Communications. Instead, virtually all of them detail the "grass roots" effort of the troops. Even without the Sun story, the mere fact that this appeared simultaneously in multiple "big media" outlets is evidence enough of such a campaign. In the pre-internet days this wouldn't be so obvious, but in these days of instant global communication the life cycle of such a story should hardly exceed 24 hours (and wouldn't have in the past without active media participation). But if you're among the few tech savvy and information hungry people interested in not taking such slickly-packaged information at face value, here are the facts about "Appeal for Redress" in order of discovery here.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007574.html

Jane

I just want to add, so you guys can imagine what we go thru in the Bay State, that we have NO voir dire here. We have to pick jurors from the statements they make on their application, and the look in their eye. It makes it a real crap shoot.

JohnH

Jane
And if they only have one eye, they must be scary to look at too!

boris

Only if you're cyclophobic!

clarice

Jane--that's ridiculous. Some trial lawyers view the voir dire process as a way to tell their version to the jury and contend that cases are won or lost in voir dire. Next thing you'll tell me is that, like No. Car. you don't have transcripts of grand jury proceedings or--worse--that Nifong is going to be your next Atty General.

Patton

Another classic Fitzism:

FITZGERALD: ""Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate. """

He meant to exclude Richard Armitage of course when he made that statement. Apparently it is essential for Libby to be accurate, not for Armitage.

clarice

Rev your engines. Covering the trial next week is James Joyner of Outside the Beltway and Murray Waas for Crooks & Liars.
Live feeds of the blogs can be found here.
http://www.mediabloggers.org/

If Waas blogging isn't red meat for JOM nothing is.

clarice

Patton, that statement is outrageous for as we know Fitz has admitted that he has no evidence that Libby knew her status was "classified". Even Armitage said he's never seen a classified agent's disclosed in a memo like that.

PeterUK

""Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate. "

If that is an example of Fitzgerald's English ,no wonder Libby was confused.

Jane

Clarice,

It is outrageous, and relegates every trial to a crap shoot. And frankly given our current governor, Nifong is probably being recruited as we speak.

Patton

Chris Mathews is getting so crazy I figure soon he'll be claiming Dick Cheney plans to walk into the trial with Judith Millers brother from Italy, who speaks no English, on his arm.

clarice

Just in case you are interested in tittle tattle which, of course, as bien pensants you are not, Bob Cox says the reporters do note the bloggers' criticisms of them and were repeating them this week..you know "X says I'm a cretin." "He says I'm a Fitz groupie" etc etc..

Rick Ballard

"X says I'm a cretin."

Who will defend the noble cretins from this malicious slander?

clarice

You looking at me, boy?

Extraneus

If that is an example of Fitzgerald's English ,no wonder Libby was confused.

Good observation, PUK. I found myself having a hard time with his sentences, too, in written form. Imagine what it's like when it's just verbal, and you try to answer without asking him to repeat the question a few times first?

I wonder if he has a lot of perjury convictions under his belt. Is there any way to check his stats?

Rick Ballard

"You looking at me, boy?"

Heavens no - you're still a blogger. The remarks were about degenerate journos, were they not?

topsecretk9

Bob Cox says the reporters do note the bloggers' criticisms of them

Hopefully that means comment sections too (here goes):

DAVID GREGORY? - you are NOT my proxy! Seriously man, it's cool. I really don't need your help! Thanks.
topsecretk9

Bob Cox says the reporters do note the bloggers' criticisms of them

Hopefully that means comment sections too (here goes):

DAVID GREGORY? - you are NOT my proxy! Seriously man, it's cool. I really don't need your help! Thanks.
topsecretk9

Imagine what it's like when it's just verbal, and you try to answer without asking him to repeat the question a few times first?

Didn't the bostonish prissy lady not understand a question he asked yesterday? She said it was complex, asked to repeat?

It reminds me of the Team America scene with kim jung il

Come again?

What was that?

One more time?

Javani

""Your argument regarding how the MSM will use Corn's spin also weighs against your belief that the jurors will have their eyes opened when they hear the details about Joe Wilson. I am not so sure.""

I'm sticking with my opinion for the major publications, but look forward to some not involved to mock the others. At trial the jurors will have the defense. Fitz has already signaled he will press a conspiratorial narrative, e.g. his treatment of Cheney's newspaper as some kind of Da Vinci's code solution, rather than a cut out of an article that might interest Cheney because it essentially calls him a liar. The jury isn't going to buy the borg meme that one can't attack the credibility of someone attacking your own.

I'm especially looking forward to the cable roundtable show with Real Trial Lawyers discussing the day's events. Trust me not one of them is going to say "average citizens are inclined to trust journalists."'

I don't know what Cheney told the FBI, but if it was something like "Yeah, I told him on about July 1 about the wife" --case closed. The jury won't fathom easily a motive explanation of protecting Cheney when Cheney isn't doing it for himself.

""If that is an example of Fitzgerald's English, no wonder Libby was confused.""

It's going to be painful to watch...

""That's an interesting thought. Epic was June 14th, 2003. Not very often the CIA uses an asset who openly advocates the overthrow of as an important US ally. The UK article was one of the first wasn't it? Wonder if the UK weighed in on Joe Wilson before he penned his op-ed?""

Wilson was working on Team Kerry probably trying to score points for an ambassadorship or something else. He was working within the context of the Democratic Party's meme-agenda to paint Bush a liar, Bush's "truthfulness" at the time polled as his greatest asset, and the Democratic Party was running as a brand name rather than on policy points they could articulate (the classic example is the 2004 Dem convention forgoing any policy planks). Wilson anonymously appeared in American sources first, IIRC in late June in the Independent and one or two other UK papers. This was critical to the Dodgy Dossier affair because Bush cited British Intelligence for the uranium claim. He might have injected himself proactively, or got caught up in it by act of that British critic with a South Asian name attending EPIC and taking that info home.

If all these items play out the jury will feel itself remarkably privileged to see a mystery unravelled unlike expected, the party doing the unravelling the one respected.


PeterUK

"Who will defend the noble cretins from this malicious slander?"

Cretinhood is a hard won pinnacle,these people will have had to pass through various grueling stages of retardation to arrive there,moron.imbecile- and stay sober.Do you think this has been easy ?

MayBee

The Libby side wants to create multiple narratives:

That reminds me of what a defense attorney once said about how you need to cover all the bases to create a good defense. His example was a case against you where your dog bit your neighbor. The good defense would be:

- The neigbor wasn't bitten by a dog
- My dog wasn't the one that bit him
- I don't have a dog

Other Tom

If you've seen a voir dire in California, you probably aren't particularly enamored of the process as practiced there. In federal civil actions it's primarily conducted by the judge, and the lawyers are tightly restricted as to where they can go. It eliminates all the pre-arguing stuff, and that's fine with me.

battery

If you've seen a voir dire in California, you probably aren't particularly enamored of the process as practiced there. In federal civil actions it's primarily conducted by the judge, and the lawyers are tightly restricted as to where they can go. It eliminates all the pre-arguing stuff, and that's fine with me.

angels online gold

In fact at first sight I have fallen in love with angels online gold.

eve isk

I like your written, but I also like eve isk.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame