Powered by TypePad

« Libby Thread - Friday Afternoon [OK, Thursday] | Main | Libby - Friday Pre-Game Show »

February 15, 2007

Comments

boris

And do you think that fact bears more relevance to you than it did to Libby at the time?

Wouldn't be on this site if it didn't.

Make a case why Harlow telling Martin "we sent Joe cuz he knows the region, we used him before and his wife works here" would register the wife as an important detail for setting the record straight on Joe's false accusations.

Ralph L.

I thought it was established pretty quickly, at least in some people's minds, that the IIPA likely didn't apply. Wasn't Victoria Toensig all over the TV about it?

MarkO

While I’m not looking for a fight, it seemed to me when the judge had a question on admissibility, he went out for lunch and came back to advise the parties that he had consulted with other judges about the admissibility of evidence. Now, I understand the difference between asking what you do logistically and practically in the first month of the job, but I thought the judge’s actions were more like consulting with an expert. The judges are, after all, experts in the law. To do so, however, under the Federal Cannons, a judge must give notice and report. That’s my analogy and my stuck to story.


4) A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications on the merits, or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or impending proceeding. A judge may, however, obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives notice to the parties of the person consulted and the substance of the advice, and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond.

CAL

The only count of the indictment I can see any reasonable jury convicting on is count 2 of making false statements.

Count One (Obstruction) conversation with Russert 7/10 or 7/11 and conversation with Cooper 7/12
Count Two (false statements) re 7/10-7/11 conversation w/ Russert
Count Three (False statements) re conversation w/ Cooper
Count Four (perjury) Conversation w/ Russert
Count Five (perjury) Conversation w/ Cooper

Cooper:

Libby claims he told Cooper about Plame but referenced it to reporter gossip that may or may not be true.

Cooper claims he asked Libby about Plame and that Libby did not reference it back to reporter gossip.

Coopers note of the conversation was, “had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it’s ever.”

It is not unreasonable to assume “ever” is actually meant to be “even” as in “not sure if it’s even true”. As in Libby telling him he wasn’t sure if the information was true.

So we have a he said/he said situation with the only documentation tending to support Libby but to convict you have to believe Cooper beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodbye Counts 3 and 5.

Russert:

Libby testified to the grand jury Russert brought up Plame. Libby also testified he was surprised because he had forgotten Cheney told him.

Russert testified he didn’t. Further he testified it was impossible since he did not know who Plame was at that time.

Russert also testified that if Mitchell or Gregory knew, then he would know.

Fleischer testified that Gregory knew because Fleischer told him.

Reasonable doubt #1.

Further, in Russerts grand jury testimony, sorry no, in his FBI interview, since he wasn’t actually called to testify before a grand jury where he would not have been allowed to have a lawyer present which most people in America know, which any lawyer certainly should know, which any newsman certainly should know, which anyone who hangs around Washington hoi-polloi certainly should know, but which Russert testified under oath as a licensed lawyer, a network bureau chief, and a veteran of 30 years hobnobbing with Washington elite, that he did not know, Russert said it was possible that the subject of Wilsons wife might have come up.

So at a time closer to the actual events, it wasn’t impossible in Russerts mind that Wilsons wife was mentioned. It was only later that it became impossible even though if he did not know about Plame at the time of the Libby conversation, presumably he was aware of that fact at the time of the FBI interview where he burned a source over the phone to an unknown third party under no protest and he should have said it was impossible then as well. Interestingly, the prosecution refused to turn the notes of said interview over to the defense.

Reasonable doubt #2.

Whether or not Libby lied when he said he was surprised to hear about Plame from Russert, it is not perjury and it is not obstruction.

Goodbye Counts 1 and 4.

So all that leaves us with is making the false statement that he forgot about Plame between first learning about her and then hearing about her again from Russert. If the jury thinks that was important enough for the prosecutor to drag them through all this, then they might convict.

Ralph L.

Martin, Wilson wouldn't let us forget it.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'It's undisputed that Cheney told Libby on June 12. It doesn't pass the laugh test that he forgot that.'

You're ridiculous. On June 12th Valerie Wilson was nobody. Her idiot husband didn't make her a martyr until more than a month later. Why would Libby remember an insignificant detail?

clarice

The really diabolical thing about this conspiracy is the way Libby waited in his office for reporters to ask him about Plame so he could "OUT" her..How when he was trying so hard to rebut that serial liar Ambassador Munchausen to Sanger and Kessler and Pincus he never mentioned her--probably just planted that notion by esp the way Comey supervised Fitz.

Barney Frank

boris,

--Can't Cline speak for Libby? Give the version of events that Libby has been able to "remember" more accurately with access to notes and discovery.--

Good question, perhaps one of the lawyers can answer that.
I believe Cline is somewhat limited because Libby didn't testify. He can't just stand up now and say "here is what Libby would have said if he had testified now that he has had discovery and his notes to refresh his memory".
Only NBC lawyers get to do that.

boris

Only NBC lawyers get to do that.

Exactly. Precedent.

kate

Again, it is not ususual that Libby would be the point man to defend the OVP against an attack, actually lies about the VP. The wife was a cipher, a piece of gossip until Corn spread his narrative.

In fact, if Libby is convicted it's not because he was disputing Wilson. It would be because he lied to the Grand Jury.

Clinton's White House was very effective in responding to critics. You do know that White Houses do get to respond to critics, I hope?

clarice

Go to SD's site and see what I posted upthread this afternoon--it is the revised proposed defense theory of the case they want presented to the jury--they have some leeway--and are arguing from the press of really significant matters..

Rick Ballard

Cline can pull from the gj transcript though. There is a surfeit of Libby testimony from which to construct a very plausible argument along precisely those lines.

Jane

I'm afraid that for Martin, pete, etal, what is really required to deal with Cheney is not a prosecutor but an exorcist.

I agree, but that is what Libby is dealing with. It's instructive that martin could not articulate a reason for his surety of Cheney's evil. He entered the room "knowing" that Cheney is bad in a kajillion ways - and nothing will disabuse him of that notion.

So someone who says in voir dire "I'm against the war, but can be fair", probably thinks that his or her feeling about Cheney is a fact, not a feeling. It's a condition predicate on everything else. He goes into deliberations with that bias.

Note that martin thinks that Libby could not possibly forget what his boss told him, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Val was an issue, or a target. And despite the incredibly list of things on his plate. Cheney must have been petty, because martin is petty. Because Martin was conspiring to get the VP he is sure to his shoelaces that Cheney was out to get Val. It's a fact in his mind, no need for any proof.

It's Well's job to disabuse him of that notion, but my guess is that it isn't going to happen. We can ask him again after closing I guess.

ARC: Brian

After voting to acquit, the jury let it be known that once would have been enough, and they thought they were being talked down to. I had a similar experience where jurors after the trial told me that my opponent annoyed them absolutely to distraction with his repetitiveness and slowness.

Or you could have had my wife's firm's problem (is that english?) with one case. The jurors voted against their client (the defendant) because they didn't like

a) that there were a lot of female attorneys at that table

b) what the female attorney's wore.

c) the size of the diamond in one defense attorney's wedding ring (no not my wife)

The thing about juries is you never know....

Martin

Sullivan-if it's so insignificant- why the hell was Cheney was talking about it with his COS-and why did said COS-Libby-find it significant enough to write it in his notes-on June 12???

Syl

Martin

Otherwise for Cheney not to at least appear as a character witness certainly leaves a bad taste.

I'm sure it does with some people, and may have been a disappointment to some on the jury for various reasons. But it's only the hardcore, I believe, who truly believe Cheney outed a covert agent in revenge against a noble whistleblower.

(And the jury heard from two sources in the trial that Wilson was a bit of an ego-centric prick...hardly noble.)

But I do wonder how many rationally realize that if Cheney truly wanted to punish Val he had the power to do so using non-public channels. She was his employee. Why risk the outcry and do it publicly? Cheney's been around. He knows how the press treats those they abhor.

Barney Frank

Martin,

--why did said COS-Libby-find it significant enough to write it in his notes-on June 12???--

Here's a better memory test than your's upthread. Repeat to us everything you wrote a note about three months ago, without looking at them.

Jane

Why didn't Wilson testify? That's as logical as Cheney testifying? Not enough of a man I guess.

boris

why the hell

Asked you first.

Martin

"Cheney must have been petty, because martin is petty."

Oh come on Jane. Be fair. I don't think Cheney is nuts just because you're nuts. Cheney is nuts AND petty for reasons all his own.

Martin

"Cheney must have been petty, because martin is petty."

Oh come on Jane. Be fair. I don't think Cheney is nuts just because you're nuts. Cheney is nuts AND petty for reasons all his own.

Jane

Why didn't Wilson testify? That's as logical as Cheney testifying? Not enough of a man I guess.

JM Hanes

From Libby's Grand Jury testimony (GX1, p.195):

I get a lot of information during the course of a day. I probably get --you know, after this all came up sort of for a few days tried to take a census of how many pages of stuff I get in a day, and I tend to get between 100 and 200 pages of material a day that I'm supposed to read and understand and I --you know, I start at 6:00 in the morning and I go until 8:00 or 8:30 at night, and most of that is meetings. So a lot of information comes through to me, and I can't possibly recall all the stuff that I think is important, let alone other stuff that I don't think is as important. And so when a lot of this --a lot of stuff that comes to me, what I will normally do is I'll gather my staff together and say, hey, what happened here? You know, there was some meeting we had on, let's say, Iraq. What did, what did people say, or what happened last week when we had that meeting? Did State agree to do something, or was the Defense Department supposed to do something? And we'll sort of pool our recollections of it and that almost always bring me a fuller recollection of what's happened. I haven't done that here because as I understand it, you don't want me to do that here. I'm happy to do it at some point, but I haven't. So I apologize if my recollection'of this stuff is not perfect, but it's not in a way that I would normally do these things. I would normally -- in the normal course of what we do in a day, I would bring the staff together or ask the Vice President and go through all this, and I haven't done that here, and I apologize if there's some stuff that I remember and some I don't, but it's --I'm just trying to tell you what I do in fact remember.

ed

Hmmm.

Did the prosecution offer up at least one single witness that didn't either misremember or get contradicted by another prosecution witness?

Patrick R. Sullivan

What Brain Death looks like (from Marcy):

'The importance of this is that so long as Libby lied when he claimed to have said that he "didn't know Russert had a wife," that was all a part of the the lie that he learned from Russert. You see that the "not knowing he had a wife" is very easy to prove. Which is why they're trying to yoke it to the "found out from Russert."'

What law school did she graduate from?

Here's another picture of BD:

'Sullivan-if it's so insignificant- why the hell was Cheney was talking about it with his COS-and why did said COS-Libby-find it significant enough to write it in his notes-on June 12???'

They talked about hundreds of things. Libby wrote all kinds of notes. He remembers what percent of what is in his notes?

Barney Frank

Jane,

--I agree, but that is what Libby is dealing with.--

I suppose it's possible Libby might be dealing with twelve loony tune lefties who want to send Libby up the river in lieu of inviting Cheney to a neck tie party at the old oak in the town square but I think it's more likely most are going to look at the evidence. If not then he should have copped a plea.

RichatUF

jerry...

yet another of his very busy weeks to chat over coffee with Miller about Niger and Wilson made this point perfectly...

Therefore talking about an inconclusive mission of great importance (and not getting any striaght answers) some how equates to "getting Wilson through his wife"

Right

from Martin...

Since learning Wilson's wife was CIA-have you ever forgotten it?

Gov't stipulated Plame-Wilson does not work at WINPAC (that narrows it down). Gov't did not introduce anything about her status ("classified" etc). Jury is required to NOT SPECULATE on her status-are they going to all say, to hell with that and convict because, well, she just had to be important. Maybe even more important than Mr. National Command Authority himself.

RichatUF

pldew

Martin,

The reason the June 12 note is undisputed is Libby testified to it after consulting his notes. During his initial interview with the FBI he was not allowed to consult them, because he had previously turned them over to comply with the President's order to cooperate. I haven't noticed any other witness in this case who was prevented from consulting their own records prior to interview/testimony. That strikes me as providing a serious dose of reasonable doubt.

Jane

I suppose it's possible Libby might be dealing with twelve loony tune lefties who want to send Libby up the river in lieu of inviting Cheney to a neck tie party at the old oak in the town square but I think it's more likely most are going to look at the evidence. If not then he should have copped a plea.

Barney,

I think that's the risk. We know martin is loony, but martin thinks he's got a bead on the truth. That's the risk.

obsessed

ay mamá

JM Hanes

Martin:

"And if Waas is anywhere close to the truth..."

You want the truth? Waas wrote a 4700 word behind-the-scenes look at Plamegate -- without ever mentioning Richard Armitage at all. Waas is close to something, all right. His real talent is re-packaging and recycling old news.

boris

If not then he should have copped a plea.

Based on what went down no reasonable jury would convict. More testimony would not sway an unreasonable jury. Under those circumstances laying the groundwork for appeal is better than copping a plea. IMO.

Martin

Jane, I might humor you more but Cheney's approval rating is at 19%. I know you're in the "Hey 19" crowd, but most adults quit listening to Steely Dan a long time ago.

Sue

Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten about the Wilsons.

Libby's largest obstacle. A jury of 12 like Jerry who can't get the facts straight. Libby never denied knowledge of Wilson.

Jane

Martin,

You are an example, not a source of humor. Sorry.

RichatUF

from clarice...

The really diabolical thing about this conspiracy is the way Libby waited in his office for reporters to ask him about Plame so he could "OUT" her

Those diabolic "neo-cons"-thats why they invented tinfoil

RichatUF

Martin

I was kidding. I'm blasting "Deacon Blues" right now!

JM Hanes

Martin:

"Cheney's approval rating is at 19%"

You'd be absolutely stunned at the percentage of people who think hamburger is a manufactured industrial product too. You make Jane's point for her, without even realizing it.

southside

What is it about people like Martin just knowing how evil Cheney is? I like Cheney as he appears to me on my television set; he exudes capability and confidence, a serious person. But I would never claim to know what he thought or exactly what kind of person he would be except by what I know from his record of public service and his onscreen time. The conspiracy theorists posit evil intentions and grandiose power struggles to people like Cheney based on some bizarre code I can't begin to understand.

Martin

Actually Hanes a lot of people still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Spare me your sanctimony.

Ralph L.

Jane, I'm crossing my fingers that the percentage of hardcore moonbattery is low, even in DC. The whole town does not revolve around politics. Remember, over half of Americans probably can't name the VP.

Syl

JMH

Thanks for excerpting that part of Libby's GJ testimony. It really saddened me.

If for just one fleeting moment, anyone who thinks Cheney is behind it, would look at that and say, well, what if Libby didn't lie? what if he was honestly giving information to the best of his ability and memory?

Just for one fleeting moment would the thought cross their mind that, well, Cheney WOULD do something like that, but what if he didn't actually do it in this case?

Doesn't mean that thought would have to stick around.

wr

Just a thought on the unanimous comment by the Jury. Might the spokesman, being somewhat nervous, have garbled his message/joke and omitted "lack of" in front of unanimous? That would be consistent with the lady without the red shirt. It also would be consistent with a message by the jury saying that, even if they were joking around a bit now, they intended to take their responsibilities seriously and come to a verdict.

owl

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/CIA_Leak_Case

AP but the shocker sitting on my homepage says "Libby trial offers little on Rove theory".

Don't say they don't milk it!

Ralph L.

Martin, you want a name when you lose?

Other Tom

It's been a while since I did any of this, but it's my recollection that character witnesses only testify after conviction and before sentencing--which would seem to account for why Cheney didn't appear in that capacity. And as for why he didn't appear as a percipient witness, Cheney himself had zero to do with that decision, and no motive for not testifying can be imputed to him. The decision was absolutely only for Libby and his counsel to make.

As for whether it is "clear" that Libby perjured himself to cover for Cheney, given the florid language of the indictment, including a lot of excess that the prosecutor was at pains to keep from the jury, I believe we can be reasonably assured that if he felt that way he would have alleged it. He didn't; end of story.

Finally, concerning the relative importance of Plame, as opposed to Wilson's op-ed, I don't think the fact that Cheney made a cryptic note about it tells us very much at all. I have made thousands of pages of notes about stuff I wasn't even thinking much about at the time--my Commercial Paper exam would be adequate proof of that. And speaking for myself--and I have followed this story closely since the time of the op-ed--I couldn't begin to tell you when I learned that Plame had been at CIA, nor from whom or from what I learned it. I don't know if I ever read the Novak column, or whether I saw something on the news, or on Lucianne.com--or of course Just One Minute. And obviously I wouldn't be able to tell you whether I had learned it once, forgotten it, then learned it again, unless someone questioned me about it, and I had notes, the comments of others, and various other means of refreshing my memory.

Ralph L.

Martin, you want a name when you lose?

kate

owl-the media is so disappointed. No Libby, no Cheney, no Rove theories. Just a story about a bunch of crappy journalists, oh, wait, brave journalists, very heoric.

larwyn

Can't keep up with you guys - but did have IMHO a "great thought" for that book you better write!!!

Include a DVD with the MSNBC, CNN, IMUS (sure there are plenty more) indexed to go with timeline/page of what was actually going on.

Words on page just don't do it.

Caught Shuster on Hardball rerun and they have so edited a tape with GW/old WH press rep (how soon we forget).

If you make this book a joint effort, you're got a world of talent in this tread every day.

Hopefully, when Soylent's out of Basic, he'll have some time to join in. Please send him my best regards, praying for him.

Know that there's lots out there. Read StopTheACLU almost every day - but, you gotta get this all down. It is just one of the most outrageous examples of what is wrong with the LEFT and all their minions.

And a big ::::smooch::::: to TM for mixing up the days. Thank you, gives me hope that I'm not absolutely brain damaged lately.

Madly emailing all the posts and the wonderful links the JOMists are putting into comments. Trying to get some of MILBLOGS attention too, but wonderfully great things are going on in Iraq and with jerks like Murtha and now Jane Hamsler mouthing off - trying to outdo Arkin, there hands are a bit full. Hope you all saw Ray Robison's post at AT this morning - great smackdown of Arkin/Kerry et al.

Back to trying to catch up with you, while wishing for "world peace". :::laughing:::

richard mcenroe

TM -- Didn't Lucky Jack Aubrey warn you enough about tempting fate? Shtum, son, shtum...*knocks on wood, scratches backstay...*

topsecretkk9

I keep reading the FDLer's crybabing about Robert Cox and get press passes (as if this somehow needs to be a point score)

One leeetle detail they seem incapable of acknowledging is Cox started needling for bloggers a long time ago and so it IS possible his efforts assisted them obtaining their own passes.

I am just so sick of the self important victimhood over the blogger passes and the feed - I mean Waas didn't bother to show up or apologize until I guess he did decide to show up according to what I've read.

Geez, they take themselves so seriously.

Marc

This is easy - HUNG JURY

Among any twelve people in this country there must be one committed moonbat willing to convict no matter what and one die-hard wingnut unwilling to convict no matter what - a perfect resolution to such a perfectly convuluted world.

larwyn

PS: It is one thing to have that robot screening thing - but when it seems to designed that only robots with X RAY VISION could discern it - that's another thing all together!!

Took 3 tries this time and that is hardly my record.

Syl

Martin

Actually Hanes a lot of people still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Spare me your sanctimony.

And why do you think people think that, Martin? I dare you to tell me.


abad man

I am not sure how much the jury knows about the whole matter, which I think may affect how they look at the case. In a town as apparently as inbred as DC, I find it hard to believe a wife arranging a boondoggle for her husband is that big of a deal. I am sure nepotism is widespread in DC, so a trip is just peanuts. Who really cares? Just snarky, gossipy types. I think it is reasonable that a B list diplomat getting sent by his almost non-entity wife( Plame? Mrs. Wilson ? who cares?) just didn’t pass the so what test as something memorable ( as opposed to Penelope Cruz). Plame was a nobody none of the big wigs cared about until mid July. A theory, as opposed to the prosecution’s case, supported by the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, who couldn’t remember much about her either. If the jury buys this Libby just might walk. This case only works if you assign the worst possible motives to Libby, and the best motives to everyone else.
If everyone else had only good motives though Plame would have never been outed, given how inept Libby was at the job.
This might be a new insult … You’re so lame you can’t even spread gossip in DC.

verner

TT:"I really don't see "mixed up" Libby as plausable/reasonable. There appears to have been an organized campaign of pushback on something that appeared to have mucho
import to the OVP."

DUH. It's kind of in the job description--you push back against lies...And, as testimony shows, the pushback was against WILSON. Valerie barely came up.

TT: "I don't buy the busy (but whacky! :)) chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States with selective memory problems."

Why not? Every freaking witness put up by Fitz had memory problems. Why should Libby be any different?

TT "ISTM that a Libby who believed that "Russert will never testify" makes a lot more sense."

Yeah right. You mean Timmy Russert who gave him up to the FBI without a supeona? You think Libby would stake his life on the NBC news team? Give me a break.

clarice

Love ya back,Larwyn.


"Gov't stipulated Plame-Wilson does not work at WINPAC (that narrows it down)" It also shows that Miller's source was not Libby. There's no indication anyone every told him Plame worked at WINPAC. The only one's ever claiming she was appaear to be Wilson/Plame (Vanity Fair etc).

Ralph L.

Unpleasantness on the other thread. Anyone with absolute moral authority want to intervene?

MayBee

I'll throw this out to the room. Since learning Wilson's wife was CIA-have you ever forgotten it? Just for a second?

What an odd question. I know that I learned it at some point, because I now know it. But I don't remember the times I heard it and didn't learn it.
Furthermore, I don't remember when I first heard it OR first learned it. I just remember at some point there was a big bruhaha about Wilson and his wife and the 16 words. I don't remember if I ever read the Kristoff column or the Novak column.

Martin

OtherTom- you're correct on the character witness point, but I meant the witness for which they used Hannah- Libby is a busy guy, busy life, etc.

Sue

I don't think the jury will get the significance of WINPAC vs. CPD, unless Cline hammers it home. Even then, he can't mention the VF article where the source is obviously the Wilsons.

Jane

Jane, I'm crossing my fingers that the percentage of hardcore moonbattery is low, even in DC.

Ralph,

It doesn't require moonbattery. Last week I asked my mother what she thought about Russert. She said the prosecutor would sort it out.

clarice

My recollection is that Plame was revealed by Novak to no discernible audience--it took the special magical touch of COrn (perhaps Blumenthal gave him a hand) to make the story memorable--and he did it because he knew that only a "sexed" up tabloid type story would catch on--something the usual bobos recall from daylight soaps or teevee dramas.

No one with a sense of brains could have bitten for this.

vnjagvet

Good one, MayBee. And that is exactly the question. Where and when did he get the information. Martin, of course knows. It is "seared" in his mind. Cheney did it. EEEEEEEVIL Cheney.

Sue

I think it is going to be the culmination of all of the testimony which will get the jurors to convict on something. Unless Cline hits it out of the park in closing, I still predict a conviction on at least a few of the counts.

topsecretkk9

Yes Sue...your "eyoreness" is going through loud and clear ::grin::

topsecretkk9

coming, not going

Patrick R. Sullivan

A typical half day in Scooter Libby's life in June-July 2003 included talk of:

"Bomb diffused...explosions...E African extremist network...Info on possible AQ attack in US...conncern about specific vulnerability to terrorist attack...Proposed ME plan, Israeli military action...Country's security affecting AQ...International org's position concerning country's nuke program...Iraq's porous borders present security threat...Demonstrations in Iran turn violent...Israeli offer of cease fire to Palestineans...Memorandum assessing Iranian' pres' view on terrorism...Problems in leadership in PLO...Foreign media analysis concerning Egyptian treatment on Paletinian conflict...Media, opposition of Israeli public to attacks...Info on Egypt process ME peace process ...Palestinian groups and Israel...Constraints on Israeli military...Saddam Hussein published on website...Memo in Iraqi WMD...Housing shortage in Iraq...Info on 1920 Mesopotamia and insurgency on moden-day Iraq...Potential effect of improved governance in Iraq..."

along with maybe a ten second mention of 'Wilson's wife works at the CIA'.

owl

Think I remember....almost. Had never been to JOM but watched MSNBC and MTP. The Hardball bunch kept me screaming at the TV with the mischief they cooked daily.

I watched Wilson. I watched Condi on MTP. I watched Matthews promote Wilson exactly like he had the other DNC campaigns. Sure enough.....Wilson's star was born. I watched Andrea (evidently one time more than the other 2 viewers). It was all cooked at that place. I knew Gregory knew because Condi kept saying David, David on the plane pressor. This is the bunch that was not only having Russert talking to FBI but I would bet the house that Matthews, Gregory and O'Donnell.

Jane

Patrick,

Even in the form of a stipulation (or maybe because it was in the form of a stipulation) that was the most powerful part of the trial for me. I actually read it to my law partner, who has no interest in the Libby trial. And she was stunned.

And it blows that whole "how could he forget" stuff right out of the water.

Ralph L.

Jane, well said on the other thread. I hope it did some good.

MayBee

Our problem, yours and ours, is that we've been pouring over the indictment for well over a year, we've been following all the pre-trial stuff, we know details, timing, participants, inside out and backwards.

The above phrase you quote, to the jury, is just one statement out of 8 hours of testimony. It won't have the same impact on the jury as it had on us.

We do know the details inside and out, but we've also had months or years of "knowing" improper details. We knew they were still looking for Novak's source and there are dozens of posts here and at EW's and FDL's looking for clues in newspaper articles that would point us to that source.
We knew that Libby had had several meetings with Grossman about Plame.
We knew that Russert wasn't co-operating with the investigation.
We knew that Ari could get indicted.
We knew that Libby said he first learned from reporters, and was protecting Cheney.
We knew that Valerie worked at Winpac.
We knew that Grossman would vouch for/protect Wilson.
We knew (it is in a Fitz affy) that Libby's testimony and Coopers differed substantially.

These are things we thought we knew, that we didn't know because they weren't true. The jury is not ever learning these, and therefore will not be mislead by them.
The jury knows that whatever Libby said about reporters, he said at the same time that Cheney had told him. He said at the same time he might have discussed telling reporters about her.
It makes whatever he has said to the GJ about reporters seem much less nefarious.

It makes it unlikely Fitzgerald will argue Libby was protecting Cheney. It does not work with the narrative we now really do know.

MayBee

Oh my. Sorry for the novel.

Ralph L.

Things sure have changed at the White House since Clinton's video of spring 2000.

Sue

Top,

I don't get it. What is "eyoreness"?

clarice

Actually, it is another Wells' wonder--getting it in crisply in the form of that stipulation makes it far more memorable than hearing it trickle in thru Libby or a bunch of CIA briefers..It's in the jurors' hands, they can see it, they can't miss it.

hit and run

larwy
Can't keep up with you guys

Amen.

I don't know what Other Tom and Martin have been drinking. But it ain't the bourbon I've been drinking.

clarice

MayBee, that was very good..nothing to apologize for.

Sue

I was trying to remember how I found JOM. It was around the time when indictments were being whispered. Fall of 05. Beyond that, I have absolutely no recollection of how I found this place.

Syl

MayBee

Oh my. Sorry for the novel.

Oh no! Don't be sorry. That was a terrific insight!

bad

And it blows that whole "how could he forget" stuff right out of the water.

When I pick up my 8th grader from his school for the orthodontist, the office is full of people making deliveries of things the kids and parents have forgotten - lunch, lunch money, PE clothes, text books, major projects, musical instruments, permission slips, etc....

The idea that Libby couldn't have forgotten is ludicrous if people would just look at the details they miss everyday in their own lives.

Ralph L.

Eyore from Winnie the Pooh
a persistant downer

Other Tom

As to Cheney not giving the "busy, busy" testimony, unless I'm mistaken no one gave it--it came in by stipulation. (At least the part about a-day-in-the-life did.) Hannah only testified about Libby's penchant for forgetting who told him what, and it's doubtful the VP could have done that as well. Even had the VP given the stipulated testimony, Martin would have been bitterly disappointed in the cross, which would have been limited by the scope of the direct. And another, slightly different, conspiracy theory would arise.

Rick Ballard

Thanks, MayBee. It's very difficult to keep track of all the things we "knew" that weren't true. I wonder how many of those "facts" are floating in the minds of jury members? I hope that the instructions on evidence to be considered are crystal clear.

hit and run

bad - 8th grader from school. I'm so gonna email you a story, But I ain't gonna clog up this thread.

BUT. I am gonna say,

I love you.

Ralph L.

I kept mixing Tim Blair and Tom Maguire up for the longest time.
Tom's Australian, right?

Jane

MayBee,

Great novel. I loved, it. And you must be having breakfast about now, right?

pete

Jane you ignorant slut (A SNL reference for you folks here stuck in your concrete operations stage)

"It's instructive that martin could not articulate a reason for his surety of Cheney's evil. He entered the room "knowing" that Cheney is bad in a kajillion ways - and nothing will disabuse him of that notion."

What's Cheney's approval rating? Pretty much everybody knows he's evil. Only on blogs like this can one actually find people willing to defend this handmaiden of the Iraq disaster.

Dig-in by all means dig-in!

When you're in a hole ... keep dig'n."

In for a penny? ... what the heck.

Jane

I love Tim Blair. And I think I found everyone thru instapundit. I know I read JOM religiously for years, maybe before I ever read even one comment.

My loss - entirely.

clarice

Near idea..why bother with polls. Just interrupt the ANS coverage on tee vee and ask all the dopes watching to vote..Better yet bring back trial by combat--build a few colosseums , bring in the lions and that's that.

Jane

Pete,

You are so transparent when you are losing. I like that about you.

MayBee

Oh. And I want Tom to write a book, just so every time he offers his opinion he can mention he'd written a book on this topic.

If clarice writes a book too, when they agree about something it would be a two-author consensus. Which would make them correct.

Thomas H. Ryan

Pete -

"...everybody knows he's evil..."

Work on how to marshal your facts, how to reason, how to build a case that is persuasive.

bad

Pete
Everyone knows he's hot. The fact that you think he is inherently evil adds to hotness.

Sue

Eyore from Winnie the Pooh
a persistant downer

::slaps self upside the head:: Of course, Winnie the Pooh.

Downer? I just think I'm being pragmatic. This is a jury pool that they had to weed down from BDSers to just barely BDSers.

JM Hanes

G'daddy: "Why is Cline rather than Wells doing the closing for the defense?"

Just guessing here, but I can think of several possibibilities.

1. Matching style to substance.

I haven't heard or seen either lawyer in action, but here's Christy Hardin Smith, over at FDL contrasting the Fitzgerald & Wells openings:

Personally, I found Fitzgerald's very straightforward and methodically organized style more appealing today. I felt that Wells went on too long, in a disjointed and freewheeling style, and that he was not only losing members of the public and the press, but that he started losing members of the jury with too much repetition and attempts to muddy the evidentiary waters with some confusion and counterspin.

Further along she describes Wells questionning Grossman:

To be honest, I am not enamored with Ted Wells' cross examination style — he's scattered, very extemporaneous, and overly exuberant, so that his personality overshadows the answers he is trying to elicit with his questions. When the lawyer becomes the story instead of the case, that is a problem, in my mind, and having watched a number of the other attorneys on Team Libby and from the government, I can honestly say that, stylistically, Wells' courtroom demeanor — the sort of forceful, boistrous lawyering — just is not my favorite.

I thought those descriptions were pretty interesting. Given the speed and pacing of the Defense presentation, they might want someone with a less freewheeling style than Wells. They might feel they need a tighter more focused delivery -- or some other quality Cline provides -- in this particular closing.

2. Matching lawyer to jury.

Although I'm sure the lawyers themselves get a feel for how they are doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they've had a jury consultant on board, watching juror reactions, if not a shadow jury in place. There are a number of reasons they might not pick the lawyer that has done the bulk of the examinations. They might want to pick the lawyer who seems to be connecting at a different level with the jurors, or the good cop vs. the bad cop; they might think they need a fresh/fresher face entirely.

3. Distancing the closing from the opening.

They may not want the man the jury associates with the specifics laid out in the opening to do the final wrap-up. For example, the scapegoat theme Wells apparently floated at the beginning is not, for a number of potentially controversial reasons, where the Defense actually ended up going. It would seem from Wells apologia to the court I quoted here, that the Defense strategy shifted dramatically over the course of the trial. You don't want jurors to sit there wondering why you didn't answer your own questions, or didn't otherwise deliver what you promised.

At any rate, that's my 3¢ on it.

pete

"You are so transparent when you are losing."

I'm losing? I'm losing? Wow! In what orthogonal universe do you live?

Take a deep breath. You lost. Your party is about to implode because of the support of numbskulls like yourself in a preeptive war that preempted nothing.

RichatUF

Pretty much everybody knows he's evil.

That settles it-lets go burn him at the stake

RichatUF

also: trying to remember, did Judy Miller testify that the WINPAC note did not come from Libby?

Jane

"My party" is just fine pete. And I find myself among friends. What are you doing here? Let me guess. Not enough mental bandwidth among the folks who see it your way.


That's a clue.

Other Tom

How do you know it pre-empted nothing, Pete? Dr. Cole and his Time Machine again?

H&R, you can put me down as omnibibulous.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame