Powered by TypePad

« An Inconvenient Waistline | Main | Props To Matt Apuzzo Of The AP »

February 26, 2007

Comments

MSM

I think Floyd Landis was zooming up the hills on Stage 17 powered by his own natural adrenaline buzz, and when he slid into homeplate, Fitz was there to say he missed the bag at second.

Which created huge amounts of speculation about who in the field had seen him touch the bag or not and which of the various umpires said what to the head umpire about what they had seen when.

A variety of fans in the stands then sat in judgment hearing evidence many of them doubting what left-fielder Tom Russert (Tim's evil twin) had to say about what he saw.

In the meantime, Joe Wilson who threw out the first pitch was in the stands making millions selling popcorn.

Umm, but what is Albert Brooks to all this?

SanJoseLawyer

On the face of it, the dismissed juror’s removal would seem to be good news for Libby. (Apparently a sentiment reflected by Libby’s counsels’ reactions.)

First of all, it would seem to be unlikely that she was not clever enough to hide from other jurors any research that she might have done deliberately. So, I discount the possibility that she was “busted” for that by the other jurors.

If she were predisposed against Libby, as has been suggested because of her “profile,” and if she encountered information that was pro-Libby, or that at least introduced reasonable doubt, she would not want to remain on the jury knowing that she could not, in good conscience, vote to convict (leaving to one side the question as to whether she could, in good conscience, continue after having learned outside information, in derogation of the strict admonition that she not seek or consider outside information.)

It is less likely that she encountered information that was anti-Libby, which would have merely reinforced her (assumed) predisposition, and would have made it less troubling for her to remain on the jury (again leaving aside the duty, and the admonition, that she not seek or consider outside information.) Therefore, it seems most likely that she outed herself, after either deliberately or inadvertently finding information which would be favorable to Libby.

As to the T-shirt incident, and what that tells us about her attitude, well - I have a sense of humor and am, on what I know of the record, in favor of acquittal, but I would not have worn the T-shirt.

On the other hand, I really, really, really would not have worn the T-shirt if I had had any inkling of the idea that I might vote to send the accused to prison. It would just not be possible, for me, to interject any levity into the trial proceedings if I had that possibility in mind.

On the basis of this admittedly fuzzy logic, the dismissed juror was probably, if anything, predisposed against Libby, and her removal therefore tends to benefit him.

Nick

Regarding the LIBBY.GUILTY.LYING Intrade market, it traded as low as 44.5 today before rebounding back up into the 80's and, as I write, the last trade was at 76. Someone seems to have regained confidence in a guilty verdict, there is an offer of 100 contracts @ 75, which means someone is willing to stake $750 to win $250. I am short at an average of 74.2 with my fingers crossed.

ErnestAbe

JM Hanes at 11:45...

If you think Intrade is wrong, then you have a chance to make some easy money. Go for it.

Odds are three to one in favor of prosecution. If you doubt it, you and anyone else should put up or ...

Sue

And no one pointed out the irony.

Because they moderate what is allowed in over there. That comment would never get past the bulldogs that guard the Hamster and her minions.

Jane

I just want to know the explaination for the grimace and the smile. Nothing else really tells us anything.

Rick Ballard

"Where's Rick? The fish are jumping.."

I'm here but I think TM just turned on the dolt minnow magnet. The keepers will be along after the verdict.

Christopher Fotos

To use the current term, I thought the jurors beclowned themselves with the T-shirts.

Syl

roanoke

Understood.

Neo

I want to see Libby acquitted to watch the media turn on Fitz. And they will. And we will help them.

As I posted last night, the press has already begun to hedge their bets.

jwest

nick,

People make stupid bets all the time.

Like George Soros in 2004.

Mike

Aaron Boone

maryrose

EarnestAbe:
Keep dreaming,wishing and hoping...Even you have to admit that things looked up today for a fair trial for Libby and a decent jury decision.

OH YEAH

Good roundup SanJose.

Inclined to believe the juror had BDS and the idea that (stated somewhere above) she was hunting back issues for supporting evidence to back her own ideas.

roanoke

SanJoseLawyer-

OK I like your t-shirt reasoning-but what are the odds she exposed herself to something "pro-Libby"?

Low.

Mike

the third baseman who hit the homer was Aaron Boone--brother of Brett, son of Bob, both big leaguers also.

Sara (Squiggler)

I will be interested to hear the true story behind the tee shirts. It is my belief that one jury member is a hopeless romantic and made the tee shirts up as Valentine gifts for the others. I would have worn one and never given a thought to how it looked stupid to the elitists.

My d-i-l is a hard core Colts fan and lives in the heart of San Diego Charger country. Once the Chargers were eliminated, one of her coworkers made up Colts tee shirts for everyone at the workplace to wear the Friday before the Super Bowl.

And I make up tee shirts all the time. Print out the picture or saying on iron on transfer paper and then iron it on a clean shirt. Cheap, fast, and very easy. It was Valentine's Day, after all, not just an ordinary day.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Two things stand out about the "art historian."

ONE: She didn't want to wear the red tee-shrt.

TWO: She did this ON PURPOSE! In other words? Wouldn't you say a "credentialled slut" was more comfortable among her own kind, sipping wine on a gallery floor? Than she would have been in that jury room?

Perhaps it was she who tried to control the story-board?

What she did, here, however, she DID ON PURPOSE.

Sort of the way she figured out she could "get tossed," without it costing her fine-money. So, she made an accidental fart. Or blooper.

And, whatever it was she "inadvertently heard," it could have been like that commercial that used to sell brokerage services?

A "very accidental way" sorority sisters have at keeping themselves on the "right line."

While inside the jury room? She wasn't "convincing" enough of the others to join her way of thinking. Yes, she could have stayed. And, she could have kept throwing the 8-ball. But then, you'd have to ask WHY?

She couldn't influence these people to respect a Jackson Pollack. So, why think she could "halp" Fitz?

Does it matter how she figured it out? How she could walk? Perhaps, she didn't know there was a rule that 11 "could continue?"

Yes, she is free to talk, now.

And, the lawn-mower, formerly a neighbor to Russert. And, a worker bee "under" Woodward. Might have some knowledge on how he can get the best story out? Still.

What'da soap opera! All because the upper courts have decided that the lower court judges have DISCRETION.

Well, so does the madame in the whore house.

Not the best of lights for our courts, though, to traffic inside the red light district. In my opinion.

What a sewer pipe opens on the political benefits when a man or a woman, without talent, but with the last law degree handed out in his or her class. Opts to buy a robe.

Do they envy? Do they envy, for instance, algore getting an academy award and money? As a consolation prize for losing his presidential bid? Who knows? Who even cares.

clarice

As I recall they wore the tshirts and the report was they looked at the defense table as they retired to deliberate giving the pro-Libby entrail readers good vibes..Maybe as we near Easter they'll don lamb shirts and we'll get a clearer picture of their sentiments.

Nick

I certainly hope the bet on guilty ends up being a stupid one, but I'm not quite confident enough to put up $250 to take the guy's $750 (I'm already short 50 contracts).

Intrade's record of accuracy is overrated, especially on low-volume contracts like this one. Intrade is also run with a combination of arrogance and incompetence, but unfortunately it's often the only game in town.

hit and run

Wanna give Apuzzo some props? New Thread at your service.........

Sara (Squiggler)

Jim Angle is saying that the juror "acknowledged" being tainted over the weekend, suggesting she had to be asked and did not come clean on her own.

JM Hanes

dorf:

"I bet that juror wanted off the panel."

LOL! Which election was it when the a NYTimes editor (?) was stunned at the results, because she didn't know anyone who voted for the victor? Maybe our dismissed juror didn't know how she'd ever be able to face her friends if the jury doesn't render Libby guilty.

What's interesting to me, though, is that I assume it was her fellow jurors and/or the foreman who decided she needed to be turned in (or needed to report herself, as the case may be). Digging for something is quite different than inadvertant exposure. I wonder if Judge Walton is simply trying to protect her from post-dismissal abuse by characterizing it as an unintentional error? It's more than a little hard to believe that she didn't understand the import of his instructions.

SunnyDay

Other Tom - change your email address - I bet they blocked it too.

Tried to post a message, "Is it time to start worrying?" at FDL, but remain banned.

Jane

Power out in the Courthouse

Jim

Nick,
When I went to school 100 contract at $75 each would have multiplied to be $7,500, not $750. And, if an earlier trader bought 100 contracts at, say, $48, then resold, at say, $70 on the upswing. That would have been a gain of $100 x $22 = $2,200. Not bad for a little speculation. Changes in value causes people to gain or lose. Short selling is selling high and repurchasing low, so maybe some people made even more money earlier today when the contract value dropped. Ahh, RISK and REWARD, the money cousins.

dorf

My T-shirt says: "I went to see Tim Russert and all I got was this lousey indictment."

Tom Maguire

Who's on first?

That's right.

Syl

Jim Angle is saying that the juror "acknowledged" being tainted over the weekend, suggesting she had to be asked and did not come clean on her own.

Interesting.

Maybe she was hunting down a picture of Russert she could photoshop into Novak?

Nah.

roanoke

JM Hanes-

Pauline Kael-a movie critic not unlike theater critic Frank Rich.

dorf-

LOL!

windansea

if the t shirt does not fit

you must aquit

funny how the t shirt deal and the "could be the last time we are unanamous" have played out

God has a very mischievious sense of humor

MarkO

Albert “Einstein” Brooks is relevant to everything

maryrose

Does power outage close down the jury for the day?

windansea

Power out in the Courthouse

see what I mean?

Nick

Jim,

Contracts on Intrade are worth either $10 or 0 at expiry, not $100 or 0. So the person bidding on 100 contracts @ 75 is risking $750 for a potential gain of $250, as I stated earlier. 75 = $7.50. And I am familiar with the concepts involved, as I said, I'm already short 50 contracts.

Nick

maryrose

windansea:
The rest of the jury probably knew she was bad news from the get-go. This reminds me of the Michael Jackson case. They booted someone and then he was acquited.

Syl

dorf

LOL!

Other Tom

I'm no fan of Evan Thomas, but actually I thought his claim was 5 points, not 15.

The thing to keep in mind about Intrade on this matter, apart from the low volume and wide bid/ask spread, is that there is no possibility that any trader has superior knowledge. All it reflects is an aggregate concluion, amongst the self-selected group of participants, based on what they read and hear. They don't read or hear anything that isn't available here and in multiple other places.

Christopher Fotos

I would have worn one and never given a thought to how it looked stupid to the elitists.

It's a court of law, judging a man's liberty. It looked stupid, disrespectful, clownish and narcissistic. But we live in a childish age.

Serving on juries of this magnitude is very stressful I'm sure, and everyone make mistakes.

Which election was it when the a NYTimes editor (?) was stunned at the results, because she didn't know anyone who voted for the victor?

Yeah, as noted above, attributed to Pauline Kael though that may be shaky. "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon."

theo

JM Hanes --

Actually it was Pauline Kael, flim critic of the New York Times who said that in 1972 she did not know a single person who had voted for Richard Nixon. To be fair to the late Ms. Kael, despite some later attempts to mischaracterize this remark, she did NOT express astonishment that Nixon won. It was more in the context of being unable to comment upon the election results because she did not have enough information.

I doubt the juror wanted off. She has been there the whole time and the end must be pretty near. OTOH maybe she did not like the way things were going and got disgusted with the whole thing. Far more likely, however, I think that she wanted to make some point in the deliberations and did some research to back it up. Either she or one of her fellow jurors then realized that this was a no-no.

A Manhattan art curator sure sounds like a liberal but one never knows....

Christopher Fotos

On Evan Thomas: Instapundit pointed to a transcript citing 15 points. The link it's pointing to is dead, however.

windansea

The rest of the jury probably knew she was bad news from the get-go.

I am sure the fact that she snubbed them on the T shirt deal was noted, and it sounds like someone tattled on her

that's why Wells was smiling

inquiring mind

I've been reading JOM & AT thoughout the Plame kerfluffle, though I can't say I've see all the thousands of comments. With a pause in the action (and discussion wandering to baseball and old TV shows), I thought it might be OK to ask a question that has bothered me from the time the indictment was issued.

As best I can see, the charges in counts 3 & 5 consist entirely of the following text from the indictment:


COUNT 3 (False Statement - Cooper)

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

COUNT 5 (Perjury - Cooper)

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

The charges are about LIbby's testimony about what he said to Cooper.

My question is how does what Libby knew about Plame or where he got that knowledge have any bearing on the truth or falsehold of his account of his conversation with Cooper?

Libby could have know with certainty from Cheney about Plame's CIA status and still told Cooper that he had heard it from reporters. Libby would then have been lying to Cooper, but how is lying to a reporter a crime?

The only evidence I can see bearing on this question are Cooper's testimony and Cooper's "somethine" contemporaneous note. NOthing else -- not the Russert conversation, not Ari, not Judy -- is the least bit relevant.

Thanks to Clarise, Tom and all for the depth of coverage of the whole adventure.

windansea

It's a court of law, judging a man's liberty. It looked stupid, disrespectful, clownish and narcissistic.

yeah..and so did Fitz's closing rebuttal

Chris

Digging for something is quite different than inadvertant exposure. I wonder if Judge Walton is simply trying to protect her from post-dismissal abuse by characterizing it as an unintentional error? It's more than a little hard to believe that she didn't understand the import of his instructions.

Once I read the WaPo account of the juror reportedly seeking out the info I figured the judge's characterization was along the line of his admonishment to the jury when Fitz overstepped by telling them sometimes lawyers say things they didn't mean to say.

Sara (Squiggler)

It looked stupid, disrespectful, clownish and narcissistic.

Well, I certainly don't agree with any of that characterization. It looked like real people who were celebrating a holiday. There was nothing disrespectful toward anyone, it was a simple Valentine's heart not a cartoon or clownish, but simple and direct, and where you could get narcissistic is beyond me.

If it had said "Fry Libby" or "Free Libby" that would be different. If it showed a cartoon character with a noose around his neck that would have been clownish, disrespectful and stupid. But a red shirt with a white heart on Valentine's Day is a nice sentiment. I think you need to spend more time with real people or maybe a trip to fly over country.

JM Hanes

EarnestAbe:

"Wells sob routine at the end of his close gave Fitz a chance to knock one out of the park."

File that under Keep Hope Alive.

"If you think Intrade is wrong, then you have a chance to make some easy money."

Totally beside the point. Are you saying you don't think the betting tracks the MSM coverage?

"Odds are three to one in favor of prosecution. If you doubt it, you and anyone else should put up or ..."

If I were crazy enough to think that anybody can read a jury, I'd probably be superstitious enough to think I'd jinx the outcome by placing a bet. In my experience, however, the people who actually do put up don't advertise the fact. They just pocket their money, and silently thank folks like you for the assist.

topsecretk9

--It is less likely that she encountered information that was anti-Libby--

I don't think I buy this. Left has lots of people pixalating over this. I also don't think she revealed this out good conscience either.

Sara (Squiggler)

Actually, betting on someone's conviction seems unseemly. And far more like Chri's characterization of the tee shirts.

jerry

More about Valerie's covertitude for the mix, from LarryJ:

"Dear Ms. Howell:

Instead of turning to someone who actually knows the truth you prefer to bury your head in the sand of ingnorance. It is not just my word. You can ask a host of retired CIA officers who can verify that Valerie Plame was covert until her identitywas compromised in the Robert Novak article. The willful ignorance of the Post is a disgrace to journalism. The number of people who can vouch for Valerie'sidentity is significant.

Ask Tyler Drumheller, Chief of the European Division ofthe CIA Directorate of Operations. Ask Robert Grenier. Ask me. Ask Jim Marcinkowski.Ask Mike Grimaldi. Ask Brent Cavan. Ask Gary Berntsen. Ask Mike Gorbel. instead of talking to CIA officers who know firsthand, you rely on Victoria Toensing, who has ZERO experience as a CIA officer. Hell, ask John McLaughlin. Ask Bill Harlow(oops, I forgot, he already told your reporters she was undercover and asked them ot to report it.)

Your ignorance and cowardice on this is breathtaking.
Larry Johnson"

hat tip to TalkingPointsMemo

cathyf
The thing to keep in mind about Intrade on this matter, apart from the low volume and wide bid/ask spread, is that there is no possibility that any trader has superior knowledge.
Unless, of course, the jurors are trading.

(Seriously -- I wonder what tools the court has to make sure that jurors are not trading on the bet markets?)

Gary Maxwell

How does a Manhattan art curator maintain a residence in DC? I ve heard of long commute but that is insane? Isnt she a curator at a DC museum?

arcanorum

"The thing to keep in mind about Intrade on this matter, apart from the low volume and wide bid/ask spread, is that there is no possibility that any trader has superior knowledge. All it reflects is an aggregate concluion, amongst the self-selected group of participants, based on what they read and hear. They don't read or hear anything that isn't available here and in multiple other places."

Outside of the obvious illegality, one of the jurors could potentially make a killing trading on his/her insider knowledge. Also, if it was announced that the verdict was in shortly after this lone juror got the boot, suggestive of an acquital, then you might have a window to execute a trade after this announcement (and so with information assymetry) but before trading stops and the verdict is delivered.

I wasnt aware that you could short the intrade contracts. I may have to engage in some speculation.

Alcibiades

How does a Manhattan art curator maintain a residence in DC? I ve heard of long commute but that is insane? Isnt she a curator at a DC museum?

She's retired. In her 70s.

miriam

from firedoglake

Any possibility that the other 11 jurors have been bought off?

I guarantee you, if Libby is acquitted there are 11 people who will be watched carefully until the end of time to see if they spend more money than they should.

I guess I’m naive. Who has the resources and the time to do this?

Us.

Sara (Squiggler)

Isnt she a curator at a DC museum?

She is retired from the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art. Holds a Ph.D.

Laddy

No Thomas said 15 points

Syl

A Manhattan art curator sure sounds like a liberal but one never knows

There's a difference between a liberal and a moonbat. I'm a closet Ann Coulter fan, she's witty and snarky and fast with the comebacks, but she did a lot of damage to discourse in this country with her stereotyping of half its citizens.

Yes, someone in the arts is more likely to be liberal than conservative, and this one may very well have BDS, but in general a liberal can be just as fair on a jury as a conservative.

Of course the huge problem with the Libby trial is that it's all based around politics and the divide is obvious. So I guess it's natural to think in those terms.

The really sad thing about these last few years is that even fairly apolitical people have been infected with BDS and blind rage against anything Bush is for.

Christopher Fotos

I think you need to spend more time with real people or maybe a trip to fly over country.

And yet I'm struck by the fact you know virtually nothing about me.

My long and continuing experience in flyover country has taught me that it includes many clown-free zones, but your mileage may vary.

Christopher Fotos

Ask Tyler Drumheller, Chief of the European Division ofthe CIA Directorate of Operations. Ask Robert Grenier. Ask me. Ask Jim Marcinkowski.Ask Mike Grimaldi. Ask Brent Cavan. Ask Gary Berntsen. Ask Mike Gorbel. instead of talking to CIA officers who know firsthand, you rely on Victoria Toensing, who has ZERO experience as a CIA officer.

Gee, too bad Fitz didn't know there were so many people he could have asked. Curses.

arcanorum

"I'm a closet Ann Coulter fan, she's witty and snarky and fast with the comebacks, but she did a lot of damage to discourse in this country with her stereotyping of half its citizens."

I wouldnt touch anything Coulter wrote with a ten foot pole. Same with Malkin. Same with MoDo. Same with Ivens (RIP).

just a lot of venom and hatred, with only those few facts that can be fit into an existing worldview. it was for good reason that socrates hated the sophists.

clarice

inquiring mind, I think it safe to say the Cooper counts are universally regarded as very weak. Since Libby told the FBI from the beginning that Cheney told him in June and since his g testimony re Cooper and Russert seem to describe his state of mind Ias he recalled it months later) during those conversations, Fitz seems to have wildly overpromised what he could prove.

JM Hanes

Sara:

"But a red shirt with a white heart on Valentine's Day is a nice sentiment. I think you need to spend more time with real people or maybe a trip to fly over country."

Well, I happen to be real, and I'd have really gagged over the T-shirt business myself. The only reason I might have gone along with it would have been to avoid hurting the feelings of whoever went to the trouble of bringing the shirts in. Different strokes for different folks, no need to treat it like a character flaw.

Alcibiades

It does sort of suggest, however, that OT (I think it was OT) was correct yesterday to suggest that covert has a different implication i in the CIA itself than what is represented by the IIPA as authored by Victoria Toensig and her fellows. And that they have long resented and argued against the very narrow read of what covert is that the statute gave.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well Chris, I read your very biased characterization and label it stupid, clownish, disrespectful and narcissistic. And I've been a big supporter of your work.

Other Tom

I stand corrected on Evan Thomas.

What's causing Spymaster Larry and his friends to be so persistently wrong on this issue is that they are talking about "undercover" and "NOC" and other CIA arcana--even "covertness" as it is understood and discussed within the CIA. All of those things are unrelated to the statutory definition of "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA. The scope of a federal criminal statute cannot be expanded one iota by CIA custom or usage. It's as simple as that, but Spymaster Larry has yet to show an ability to grasp simple matters.

royf

Hey jerry here's some more stuff written by scary larry.

New York Times July 10, 2001


The Declining Terrorist Threat

By LARRY C. JOHNSON

WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think. -clip-

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447248/posts

Sara (Squiggler)

JMH, that is exactly my point. Wearing the tee shirt is not reflective of a character flaw in the jurors who wore it. And, perhaps it is as simple as no one wanting to hurt someone's feelings over the gesture. Personally, I would rather have had a box of See's Candy than a tee shirt that I could make myself. It does no good for us to say we would or would not wear the tee shirt since 11 of the 12 did and I don't think it makes them stupid, disrespectful, clownish or narcissistic. On the face of it, it shows sentimentality toward a lovey dovey holiday rather than cynicism, but until the juror's can talk, we won't know for sure.

Maxwell Smart

Larry, you missed it by (pinching thumb and index finger together) 'that' much.

jwest

Sly & arcanorum,

I admire your tolerance of other’s views.

For myself, I tend to regard liberalism as less a political preference than a mental disorder. It is hard to consider people who cannot communicate with a minimal level of intellectual honesty as fully competent to sit in judgment of others.

It’s for this reason I place liberals into the same category as clowns, mimes and midgets.

windansea

It's as simple as that, but Spymaster Larry has yet to show an ability to grasp simple matters.

ever read comments at Scary's or FDL?

most of Larry and Hamsher's readers are mindless pawns with terminal BDS...they just post what the herd wants to hear

clarice

Maybe I'd have tied the shirt artfully around my handbad handle, but I'd not have worn it either.

Just saying..

clarice

**HandbaG***************

Charlie (Colorado)

Hey, JWest, you read way more into Rush than you should. And, if he ever met ya, you couldn't cover your dick head with any sort of a cap. Not that he doesn't welcome his "dittos." IDIOT.

And, if you're a female, then you're squatting to water your own lawn.

Off the lithium again, Carol?

Sue

I wouldn't have worn it. I wouldn't want to present an appearance of doing anything inappropriate, especially at a trial that involved a man going to prison.

dorf

I would maybe have tried the t-shirt as a scarf. In Dorfworld, we like to accessorize.

Sue

And I live in flyover country, just for the record.

topsecretk9

Your ignorance and cowardice on this is breathtaking.
Larry Johnson!---

Fixed Larry's paragraph.

JM Hanes

Actually Sara, I meant there's no reason to treat Christopher's opinion as though it represents a character flaw.

Charlie (Colorado)

Well, last I heard the 12th step is God, really, but, hey, FDLs made him and laughed for Bill, so why be upset?

I'm probably missing a joke here (cranky today) but the 12th step is "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs."

It varies, of course, for AlAnon, ACOA, NA, etc.

AMDG

"It’s for this reason I place liberals into the same category as clowns, mimes and midgets."

Add to the list Yankee fans and Notre Dame fans.

arcanorum

" It is hard to consider people who cannot communicate with a minimal level of intellectual honesty as fully competent to sit in judgment of others."

For me, the lowest denominator are the (numerous) websites that dogmatically excise any views foreign to their own, prefering to exist in a cultlike groupthink environment of the dogmatically indoctrinated. This is common on many websites on both the left and the right, sad to say.

This website is to my experience free of this form of moderation, very much to its credit.

In the end, it might be hoped that the truth will speak louder than the hysterical cries of 'troll' from the believers, when faced with a reality not to their liking or not conforming to their particular worldview.

It is in part because I have been banned from so many sites on both the left and the right that I loathe the censorship by those of weak mind and sloppy logic.

JM Hanes

acanorum:

I'd be interested to know where you've been banned on the right, although I wouldn't read anything into a desire for discretion on your part. Just curious.

epphan

T-shirt episode very much argues against a hung jury. It seems like it would be far harder to get 11 random people to wear silly matching t-shirts than it would be to get 11 random people reach a verdict...one way or another.

Apparently not as hard as getting 12 random people to wear matching t-shirts, however.

Gary Maxwell

This is common on many websites on both the left and the right, sad to say.

No its not. Sorry have to challenge you here. Name three websites generally thought to be right of center where this is a common occurence. I can give you lots on the left.

Other Tom

Larry Johnson is what used to be called "invincibly ignorant." The average poster on his site would appear to have a grade-school education (one of them is predicting a declaration of martial law when Libby is convicted). About half the comments are along the lines of, "way to go, Larry--you really showed 'em this time!"

Sue

you really showed 'em this time

Better yet, hey Larry you sure scared the winger. They can't even think of anything to respond with. Never realizing that the mighty Scary has banned said 'winger'. ::grin::

RichatUF

from above by way of Scary Larry

Ask Tyler Drumheller, Chief of the European Division ofthe CIA Directorate of Operations. Ask Robert Grenier. Ask me. Ask Jim Marcinkowski.Ask Mike Grimaldi. Ask Brent Cavan. Ask Gary Berntsen. Ask Mike Gorbel. instead of talking to CIA officers who know firsthand, you rely on Victoria Toensing, who has ZERO experience as a CIA officer. Hell, ask John McLaughlin. Ask Bill Harlow(oops, I forgot, he already told your reporters she was undercover and asked them ot to report it.)

Stunning...ALL thses people knew she was covert...9 plus LJ=10...Valerie really didn't know how to keep her mouth shut about her covert status

RichatUF

PeterUK

"You can ask a host of retired CIA officers who can verify that Valerie Plame was covert until her identitywas compromised in the Robert Novak article. The willful ignorance of the Post is a disgrace to journalism. The number of people who can vouch for Valerie'sidentity is significant."

A host,a significant number, how covert is that exactly ? How did they know,do they all wear different T shirts,CIA covert/non-covert or badges ? No wonder Captain Sociology got kicked over to the DOS

SanJoseLawyer

Sara: “I would have worn one [a T-shirt] and never given a thought to how it looked stupid to the elitists.”

Gee, Sara, I hope that was not an oblique condemnation of me as being one of those “elitists.” Labeling me just because I wouldn’t have worn the T-shirt? I’d be tempted to say "quelle horreur", but that flashy French stuff would really do me in.

But you probably meant only that the “art historian” / dismissed juror was concerned about the “elitists.” Right?

Maybe we (definitely including me) are reading too much into it, but I’m curious as to the origin of the T-shirt incident, too. I can certainly buy your explanation that one juror made the batch and brought the others along. Reasonable theory.

----
I would make this serious point as to the composition of a jury: If I were in the dock, I wouldn’t want to look out on a jury that had, at one extreme, jurors who were whimsical fun seekers, or “hopeless romantics” to use your phrase. Even less would I want to see jurors at the other extreme, jurors that could be called “Grim Reaper” types. I would want, I think, the jurors’ demeanors to reflect more of the “sober as a judge” or “wisdom of Solomon” attitude.

But, overall, if one does see evidence of “hopeless romantic” or whimsical fun seeker demeanors on the jurors, and if the T-shirt incident tends to show that, I would hope that they are not whimsically leaning toward conviction. And I don’t think that they would be.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well then JMH, it would seem you are saying you agree that the character of the jury is flawed per Chris's description of them.

The tee shirts were neutral and made absolutely zero statements about the trial, the lawyers, the evidence, or the defendant. You could not turn on the news and not find stories about how people were planning on celebrating Valentine's Day. If it had been an ordinary day and the jurors came in with some type of non-neutral shirt on, then I would agree. And Valentine's isn't exactly like Christmas or Halloween where they could have worn shirts with say Santa Claus on one and a Christmas tree on another or a pumpkin or flying witch. What other symbol besides a heart represents Valentine's Day. Shoot, what if the Redskins had made it to the Super Bowl and they all came in wearing Go Redskins shirts just before the big game?

I can see why attorneys would be loathe to support the tee shirts from an appearance point of view, I don't think everyday people think in those terms. We've been taught since Kindergarten to bring Valentine's for everyone, whether you like them or not. It is what Americans do.

steve

The T-shirts were in terrible taste. There are times and places where whimsy is not appropriate. Dignity and decorum are not too much to ask. If nothing else, your apparel influences your own state of mind. Dressing down induces a casual attitude, which is the last thing we want from a jury.

Sara (Squiggler)

BTW, years ago, my boss at a major daily newspaper gave an entire department "Happy Face" bright yellow tee shirts so that we would remember to always have a "smile in our voices" as we dealt with irate customers. Maybe that experience colors my perception here. Or maybe, because I've made up batch tee shirts for all kinds of events, political, sports-related, and personal, I don't see it as any big deal. Whatever, I don't think it makes the jury stupid, disrespectful, clownish or narcissistic.

Another Bob

Sara (Squiggler) | February 26, 2007 at 01:44 PM

Sara, you completely miss the point. There is a time and place for nearly everything. A courtroom isn't a party or a casual workplace.

A trial where someone is being relieved of a nice chunk of cash and may be relieved of his liberty is most certainly *not* the place for such displays.

Were I the judge, I'd have given a bit of a lecture on the subject.

Tomf

Long time, no decision. Are we getting close to "hung jury" time yet?

clarice

Well, we have different opinions on that--enough already.Machts Nicht.

Sara. I am apparently wrong on the gag order:
"The juror that was dismissed has apparently been forbidden by the judge to speak with the media."
http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2175


Sue

t is what Americans do.

On a jury? If it is what Americans do, then why is this the first time this has ever happened and the judge, the attorneys and everyone else taken aback? I don't think this is what Americans do. Generally.

Syl

I don't think we can read too much of anything into the jurors V-day t-shirts.

The objections seem to be along the lines of political correctness: one just doesn't DO that kind of thing.

Some agree, some don't. BFD.

Sara (Squiggler)

I give up. I'm just glad that I live in a world where people can be nice and sentimental without being accused of being in poor taste or lacking decorum.

clarice

I was responding to the tshirt nonsense in my last post.

tomf, the blogger I cited says there is talk in the media room that because of the power failure if the jury decidec today it might not be announced until tomorrow. Is this just blather? Probably.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame