Powered by TypePad

« Best Sentencing Idea Yet | Main | Stray Thought On Armitage And Woodward »

February 24, 2007

Comments

PeterUK

Once upon a time,long ago and far away, there was a little girl called Val-er- eee,who although she had long blonde tresses and pretty dresses, wasn't like other little girls. She did not skip, play games but would sit the live long day shooting her dolls with her assault rifle granny had bought her for her birthday and practicing strangle holds on her puppy Joe.
"What do you want to be when you grow up Val-er-ee people would ask,"Covert" she would reply,slamming home another thirty round magazine and spraying the back yard with short bursts of 7.62 rounds, all the time singing her little song.

"I love to go acoverting
Along the mountain track
And when I go, I love to sing
My rifle on my back

Valderee, valderah,
Valderee, valderah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha,
Valderee, valderah,
My rifle on my back"

"She'll change when she gets older",her worried mother would say,"It is disconcerting though, when she says "If I told you that,I'd have to kill you",every time I ask if she wants peanut butter or jelly".
"Perhaps when she goes to college,maybe some time in France might soften her up".
"Wait till she gets a boyfriend",said Val-er-ee's father,"She'll change then".

Mike

Libby walks, bullshit talks. It sounds to me like a bunch of school girls at recess gossiping.

Jim

As far as I can see and predict, the more time it takes, the more the jury is thinking "reasonable doubt." If it had been clearly guilty or not guilty, the answers to the five questions would have been easier for the jury, thus quicker verdict..

PeterUK

"It sounds to me like a bunch of school girls at recess gossiping."

Were you peeking Mike,or did you just hang around with them.

Cecil Turner

slamming home another thirty round magazine and spraying the back yard with short bursts of 7.62

Heh. Nicely done. A pithy and useful illustration of how ludicrous the word picture proffered by Scary Larry and other Val supporters is.

Sue

I think the longer the jury is out the more likely it is a guilty verdict. If they are going to possibly take away someone's freedom and hang (figuartively) them with a felony conviction, they want to be as careful as possible. If they were going to acquit, I think the verdict would have been delivered Thursday. Of course, there is the possibility of a hung jury that I'm not taking into account here.

Christopher Fotos

I think the longer the jury is out the more likely it is a guilty verdict.

Me too, for the reasons you mention.

Cecil Turner

I think the longer the jury is out the more likely it is a guilty verdict.

Concur, especially as it allows for a negotiated result (which perhaps shouldn't happen, but does).

vic

I think the longer the jury is out the more likely it is a guilty verdict.

Intrade seems to think so too.
the price on the libby guilty contract is up to 80 from 60 a few days ago.

PeterUK

On the other hand,the jury is probably just glad to escape for the weekend.This case will look very weird when compared with the mundane reality of everyday life.

Dan S

I still think the longer it takes the higher the likelihood that we have one more more holdouts, thus a hung jury. The question is, which way are they holding out?

Crew v1.0

Will someone please tell Carl Levin to stop swift-boating John Edwards and Hillary Clinton? Both of those leading lights of the Democratic Party agreed in a recent New Yorker article that they, too, had been well satisfied on the pre-war intelligence about WMD, and discount the notion that intel was manipulated; hence their votes in favor of OIF. The sharp attorney John Edwards, not professionally predisposed to believe any old horsehockey offered up on a plate, was a signatory to the unanimous bipartisan SSCI report which found no evidence of manipulation of intel in the run up to the war. Carl Levin (and his new toady, the Born Fightin' (except in Iraq) Dem Jim "I can curse perfectly in Vietnamese" Webb, are selling the "Feith lied, thousands died" canard -- directly in contradiction to recent statements in The New Yorker by Edwards and Hillary that they were not sheep sheared by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Doctor Doom, Galactus, and the rest of the super villains.

I say again: Carl Levin, stop the evil swiftboating of Hil' and the Silky Pony. It is distracting to me, as a registered Dem, and it is not conducive to the congenial national bipartisan conversation in which Hillary and I are so pleased as punch to be participating.

topsecretk9

--I think the longer the jury is out the more likely it is a guilty verdict. --

Really, you think this Sue? You are so full of surprises!

Beto Ochoa

Fitzgerald! Fitzgerald! your fearful trial is done;
The lie has weathered every rack, the scalp you sought soon won;
The jurys out, though they're in doubt, the kossacks are exulting,
While follow all the comic tale of Wilson, grim and daring.
But O Dick! Dick! Dick!
O the swelled and manxome head!
Now in the loo your closing lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

II.
O jury! dear Jury! rise up and take the bait;
Rise up! For you the shite is flung, for you the kossacks wait:
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths, for Scooters scalp a'bringing:
For you they wait, the seething mob, their eager faces turning.
Here Jury! dear jury!
This Cheny in your head;
It is some dream that he's the fault,
Fitz prays your logic's dead.

III.
The Fitzmas did not snag him, his lips are pale and thin;
He's free to walk and talk the talk that Nancy's off her ken;
The case is finished safe and sound, its cozen closed and done;
From hoax and tripe and closing's shite awaits the object won!
Exult, O Times, and gull, O Post!
But I with mournful dread,
Walk the rue where justice lies,
Fallen cold and dead

Sue

Really, you think this Sue? You are so full of surprises!

::grin::

hit and run

So, if the jury came back hung on all counts, how hard will Walton push them to reach unanimity?

Patrick

Beto Ochoa:

That is wonderful.

clarice

Good work PUK and a fine contribution by Beto, too.

Cecil Turner

I still think the longer it takes the higher the likelihood that we have one more more holdouts, thus a hung jury.

Yes, the timeline probably looks something like:

acquittal - - - - conviction - - - - hung
With some overlap. But this case is pretty complex, and the multiple charges require the jurors to go over a lot of ground carefully, so you'd expect it'll take awhile. I think it's not too late for an acquittal, and pretty early to talk about a hung jury. Libby probably doesn't want to see the Jury announcing they've reached a verdict on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

Sue

Top,

All kidding aside, I am basing what I said on almost 20 years of trial experience. Granted, my experience is state civil courts, where money and property is the issue, not a person's freedom, but I can't remember one trial where the verdict was quick that it wasn't for the defendant. The longer they stay in there, the less chance of an acquittal there will be. A hung jury is still a possibility, but I don't see acquittal, not after 2 1/2 days of deliberations.

Myself, I would like nothing better than a full acquittal. I would take myself next door and gloat till the cows came home. Or I was banned, whichever came first. And I will be one of the first to get on board the pardon Libby bandwagon.

As to how hard the judge will push for a verdict rather than a hung jury, hard. No judge wants his jury to come back with a hung verdict.

Dan S

H&R,

"hung on all counts" is unanimity in my book. You must have found the stash of beer.

verner

PeterUK:Once upon a time,long ago and far away, there was a little girl called Val-er- eee,who although she had long blonde tresses and pretty dresses, wasn't like other little girls.

Ah come on PUK, Valerie is yesterday's blond. Let's talk about something more interesting--like Anna Nicloe Smith.

Sue

I wonder, if the jury does find Libby guilty, what they will think once the fact she is not and was not covert comes out? Will they feel any remorse? Will they feel it was a sham?

topsecretk9

I'm glad you knew I was just joking around Sue.

I'll take the contrarian view and say I think there one or two holdouts for guilty and the rest not guilty.

Here's why -

At this point we can conclude there are few NOT suffering BDS or they would have rendered a guilty verdict not wanting to come back after a weekend - again

AND

taking ideology completely out of the equation, the "nature" of the crime tends towards the not guilty.

IOW, Libby is not on trial for a tangible heinous crime (i.e. rape or murder or even burglary) that would make it more likely people would have easier time voting guilty or relenting to a guilty. It's a he said - she said - much harder to convict.

and so if they are leaning, they're leaning not guilty in order to keep going and waste another weekend and come back again on mOnday.

Also, I read that the longer the jury takes it bodes worse for the "slam dunk" of the prosecution case - which is not what I believed before.

Michael Jackson jury deliberated 4 days - NG

maryrose

Hung jury is what I believe at this point. I still feel Libby should have been acquited by now but oh well. They really wanted Cheney in the dock and it pleases me no end that they are NEVER going to get him,not for his energy commission and not for this! He's untouchable which is how it should be. Partisan hacks trying to force a bad result in Iraq should not rule the day.Democrats latest stunt will not work and they will continue to be labeled the party that is soft on terrorism and anti-military. Even Lieberman wants to quit them.

Sue

Top,


Michael Jackson jury deliberated 4 days - NG

Good point. As I've said 100 times before, I don't mind being wrong and hope that I am.

eric

Any sign that the jury is split should be proof positive that Fitz's remarks in rebuttal were unfairly prejudicial per se to Libby. Walton should be quick to mistry the case. We all know that won't happen here.

I am still shocked by Fitz's remarks.

topsecretk9

Sue

I know you don't mind. I'm just kidding you eeyore ::grin::

maryrose

eric:
So am I and also by the half-hearted attempt on the judge's part to correct Fitz's deliberately misleading statements in the closer.

clarice

"Well it really means nothing. Take the O.J. Simpson trial. Four hours and a not guilty verdict. But the Michael Jackson jury deliberated for over a week to determine he was not guilty of anything. Mike Tyson was guilty. Took nine hours. Martha Steward found guilty but it didn't happened until the third day. Deliberations can happen quickly or take a while either way...

The Intrade odds on Libby being found guilty of at least one count are sitting at 80 right now... meaning you buy or sell a contract for $8.00 that will be worth either $10.00 or $0.00 depending on the verdict... so right now the betters are seeing about an 80% chance of a guilty verdict. At one time the sellers were asking 95 (or $9.50 to earn $10.00).

My gut call? They have had time to at least take some preliminary votes to see where people stand. They are divided on something and the political nature of the trial is likely to make people that much more stubborn. Look for that Intrade number to go down if the jury is still not back after Monday and continue downward if they continue to deliberate through the week.

The other thing it means is that it was not the cut and dry verdict that either of the extremes saw. No matter which direction it goes, it was not as obvious as some wanted to believe. There was no absolute truth.

btw...

The most interesting rumor floated is that the jury is 11-1 in favor of aquittal and that the former Bob Woodward employee is holding out for a guilty... "

http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/

CH Truth

Sue...

Case in point. The Michael Jackson trial had 72 full hours of deliberations that went on for well over a week... and he was found not-guilty on all counts. You read too much into the timeline.

windansea

Sue is just trying to look smart after her cute QB betting strategy was exposed for the sham that it is

I am on an unfamilar mexican keyboard and cannot make a smiley face

Sue

CH,

I hope so. I'm not a good tea reader to begin with. ::grin:: Especially not having viewed the jury personally.

clarice

Just extend the edges of the taco upwards W & sea.

topsecretk9

OK -- I read 4 days or MJackson --then found this on cnn

The jury deliberated about 32 hours throughout the course of seven days before reaching its decision.

8 hours a day would be 4 days I guess, but now I see even more time. Aye Aye Aye.

CH Truth

That's weird timing Clarice...

clarice

CH Truth--funny , we found eachother almost simultaneously..That's the first I 've heard of that rumor.How pervasive is it?

Sue

The most interesting rumor floated is that the jury is 11-1 in favor of aquittal and that the former Bob Woodward employee is holding out for a guilty...

Where in the world would that rumor come from?

Sue is just trying to look smart after her cute QB betting strategy was exposed for the sham that it is

I think I told you once before to shut up! ::grin::

CH Truth

72 32.. my mistake. But it was over a week.

PeterUK

Anna Nicole Smith? A bit stale now.

PeterUK

"The Michael Jackson trial had 72 full hours of deliberations that went on for well over a week".
Yes,but he was someone else by then.

topsecretk9

OK Cold Hard Truth

The most interesting rumor floated is that the jury is 11-1 in favor of aquittal and that the former Bob Woodward employee is holding out for a guilty... "

who floated this?

windansea

I am betting the opposite of whatever Sue says...

Why would an ex Woodward employee hold out for guilty...Woodward thinks this trial is a joke....unless maybe Bob was mean too him

Rick Ballard

Don't pick on eeySue. After all, in the end things are always quite nice in the Hundred Acre Wood.

I'm not so sure that the judge would be upset on a hung split. I'll stick with not guily on 1,3 and 5 and hung on 2 and 4.

eric

Clarice, I wonder if the Woodward juror is the foreman and the one one who wants to reconstruct the timeline. I know its just a rumor.

clarice

The judge would ask them to try one more time to reach consensus, I think. The foreman can, of course, tell him that he is persuaded it is impossible. But usually they do give them a direction to give it another shot unless the deliberations have already gone on for a long time. Like Rick, I think the Cooper counts are so weak the jury must surely have already acquitted on those.
Remember, the Woodward connected journo was also once a neighbor of Russert's and that may be the reason for the rumor.

CH Truth

I've seen the 11-1 rumor a few places... the first reference I saw was on FDL. I would suspect that the issue may go to the deeper aspect of the trial. The credibility of the media versus the credibility of the administration. In many ways it boils down to whether you believe Russert and Cooper or if you believe Libby. The bias for the Woodward aid would be that he holds the media in general (and media giants like Russert) to a higher place in all of this.

Rick Ballard

For those who don't know CH Truth" is an excellent 'deeper' political site. Very cold hearted but very level headed. It's good to see you over here CH. I could not agree more with your observation the other day:

The problem is that the hypothetical that Fitzgerald offers basically suggests a state of mind that comes from events that those following the case know not to be true... in fact Fitzgerald himself knows them not to be true. But his implication is that while he can't talk about it, it most certainly is true. So he basically argues a motive in closing that he simply never presented a single shread of evidence for during the trial, using the timing of his rebuttle to provide no opportunity for the defense to counter the charges. This is clever, but also completely unethical. The judge in my humble opinion does not go nearly far enough to rebuke Fitzgerald on this one.

Clouvert needs to find another line of endeavor.

Christopher Fotos

Yikes. Over at The Corner, K-lo says Byron York will be on Meet The Press tomorrow.

maryrose

I think this up close and personal view of the judges in the Libby trial{Tatel included} and the ANS trial{that guy is a real whack job} is disturbing. How on earth did these people become judges? clarice, Jane,Cecil or Rick Ballard seem much more judicious than these guys.

PMII

Probably discussed before, but how dod an ex-Woodward employee get on the jury?

windansea

Yikes. Over at The Corner, K-lo says Byron York will be on Meet The Press tomorrow.

how much you want to bet Russert has a list of questions Byron can't ask

eric

If the rumor is true, I wonder if the jury is talking, and to whom?

Things might get interesting when the jury is polled by either side or if/when the jurors talk after the verdict.

Off the subject, I wonder if the President will ever adress Fitz's remarks? Fitz has essentially told the jury that Libby has to be "giltah of somethun".

Alcibiades

Given all the hullaballoo that this trial produced before it began, and the tone of Fitz's closing, I think it would take a certain amount of time for the jurors to go over and over the evidence just to be sure that they weren't missing the "devastating import" of some tiny, hidden clue. And for them to be clear just how little there there was.

Jane

What I worry about is the jury accepting the premise of the charges, which they have been directed to do. Libby cannot bank on the jury looking at the charges objectively and pronouncing them dumb, the jury is supposed to assume that the government knows what it is doing.

As I said in the other thread, they either started with Cooper and have decided "not guilty" on those charges and are wrestling over Russert, or they started with Russert, and found him "guilty" and are wrestling over Cooper. I'm somewhat hopeful that they would have reached, and decided the Cooper charges first simply because that was the order in which they were presented.

Dwilkers

Hmm. FWIW (not much, I know) I think the longer we go the more likely an acquittal on all counts. Not to be oppositional, its just what I think based on what I've experienced.

The dirty little secret I know from serving on juries is that they lean towards conviction. I know, innocent until proven guilty, etc. But in fact what I've seen is that most folks assume there must be a good reason for the prosecutor to bring the charges, and that the accused must be guilty of something or he wouldn't be in the courtroom charged.

My guess is if they were going to convict they'd have negotiated that out early on - like within the first 8 hours. I think the longer this goes the better it is for Libby.

But don't bet your Sunday steak on it...

Dwilkers

...anyone have a crystal ball I can borrow?

6ce9

I was researching the other Plame and wondering about her role through ACS(not American College os Switzerland) and the Afghan warlord forgiveness rally and ended up with George Washington's powder keg. Notice the Bush's, the Foleys, the USAID funding and Shayes and Harvard. Gee, maybe earmarks for the Intelligence Committee planning and funding of the Afghan war?

www.andover.edu/about_andover/notable_alums.htm

Christopher Fotos

The judge would ask them to try one more time to reach consensus, I think

Me too, though I'm not an officer of the court nor do I play one on TV. However, in all my years of casually following court cases in the press, I have never heard of a judge saying "Oh well, thanks for trying!" after being informed for the very first time that a jury can't reach a decision.

viliety

The Val story might have something to do with some one liking Valori day. Rice is back up in Ottawa with her new 'very close' friend Peter Mckay. I guess she's done with George and, you know, Stronach was 'real friendly' with Bill and McKay and there was this hockey player way back and maybe that's where the disease started.........

Anyway, the Canadian terrorist who were going to storm paliament and behead the PM are out on bail and the detention under security certificates has been struck and will be back in court.....

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I wonder, if the jury does find Libby guilty, what they will think once the fact she is not and was not covert comes out? Will they feel any remorse? Will they feel it was a sham?'

Especially when they find out what Andrea Mitchell said on Capitol Report, that was kept from them.

eric

Christopher, you are right. I was thinking that Wells could take the first cue of stalemate and vigorously argue that this is the last straw and that this case should be mistried based on Fitz's remarks. The judge will give the jury a few opportunities to resolve any impasse.

clarice

In comparison, we live in an age of pygmies.

Almost everyday now the Daily Telegraph reports the death of some WWII hero or heroine. Words are insufficient to describe these remarkable people. Here is the obit for Lucie Bruce.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/nlulu24.xml>Lucis

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I've noticed that there aren't a whole bunch of Americans watching this trial. The same way I've also noticed that Cindy Sheehan's crowds shrunk down. Telling me, that in the world of colors, Code Pink, doesn't stand out.

As to what's going on in the jury room, I'm sure there will be devoted fans for the books that come. But they won't achieve blockbuster status. Just a niche.

And, inside the jury room? Doesn't it all depend? For instance, whose working the "visuals?" The handwriting asking for these things, seems female.

So you have 4 men, sans Viagra. And, 8 females. 2 of whom are black. What if one of the PH.D's is "deconstructing" the evidence? Well, the jury room is not a classroom. You'd be surprised how this could turn off die-hards, even if they think they're running on the Energizer Bunny fuel...

The real problems for DC? It seems to me that no matter what comes down the pike, some people will be furious. (Cindy Sheehan's crowds disappeared, her tears and fury, however, have not exactly abated.)

Will people, after this is over, still believe that DC juries are as vacuous as OJ's?

Seems to me it's more important that this "show" did not beat out Seidlin's. And, his show turned into a freak show failure.

Seems to me, too, that a lot of Americans have lost a lot of respect for lawyers, in general. And, high priced lawyers most of all.

And, as Americans distance themselves from this court system? What do you think lies ahead? My dad used to use the term "ambulance chasers," to signify how desperate some lawyers were for clients.

Me? I think if you asked most Americans "what's the CHICAGO SCHOOL mean" ... they'd reply to ya that it's obvious the Mafia is in charge.

It pays to know how to laugh.

Alcibiades

Thanks for posting that, Clarice, an amazing story.

azaghal
The problem is that the hypothetical that Fitzgerald offers basically suggests a state of mind that comes from events that those following the case know not to be true... in fact Fitzgerald himself knows them not to be true. But his implication is that while he can't talk about it, it most certainly is true. So he basically argues a motive in closing that he simply never presented a single shread of evidence for during the trial, using the timing of his rebuttle to provide no opportunity for the defense to counter the charges. This is clever, but also completely unethical. The judge in my humble opinion does not go nearly far enough to rebuke Fitzgerald on this one.
Very elegantly put.
Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

It's possible, up ahead, the jury deliberations will remind some how in academia the "gowned wonders" argue over parking spaces.

Still, HUNG seems a greater possibility. Do you know why? Lots of folk really cannot wrap themselves around "deconstruction" or the idiots who measure their acquired tenured power but the spot where they leave their cars, as they trot to work.

clarice

azaghal, I hope you saw the deconstruction here of Comey's letter last night--an investigation into a disclosure of a disclosure-HUMPH..Bafflegab designed to hide the fact that it was an open ended witch hunt and not about the IIPA..

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Going down the list of who's who on the jury, certainly indicates that Wells knew the DC jury pool pretty well. And, he took the best he could get.

As to the retired dude, who used to work for Woodward. Doesn't mean he was inside Woodward's pants. But you can never tell. Nor could you tell if this were so, true. If he didn't hold grudges long after "the affair" was over? Close. In other words. But not that close.

As to Russert being a "neighbor," I'd imagine there's space between the properties. And, gates. And, just because you share property lines, if you don't have kids in the same classes, in school together; it's as likely as not that you don't know your neighbor all that well.

I can even give a "for instance." Because a friend of mine owns beachfront property right near Pat Sajak. Pat Sajak's house is vibrant yellow. So, it stands out. But I don't think my friend has ever even been "introduced." That's just the way it goes. When I go to my friend's house. And, he opens his patio doors, you can see and hear the Pacific. But, oddly enough, it's rare to see people on the beach. (And, if you want to go into the water, it is so cold, you need to wear a wet suit.) Again, not likely to bump into much neighborhood traffic.

Of course. We're assuming a lot. Because we're watching. Most people aren't paying any attention at all.

Oh. And, if inside the jury room, they're looking for fame and fortune; perhaps they need to coordinate their Monday, or Tuesday wardrobe?

Anna Nicole Smith's decomposing body got a lot more exposure in Seidlin's court room, for all the good it did to our court system, to boot.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Good book out on the SUPREME CONFLICT. Recommended by Glenn Reynolds. If you want a picture of the PIN BALLS, who have ambitious designs on a bench seat, this book is a good place to go.

And, from it, I'd venture a guess that because of COMEY, AG Gonzales has NO CHANCES ahead of making a nice soft comfy landing on any particular bench in the federal system.

TOO MUCH EXPOSURE, like sunlight, bleaches careers kaput. (Ken Starr models this for those who aren't sure they "know" anything at all about the "lists" and the system that drives careers.)

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Heck, look at all the career destinations David Boies squandered, just picking fights he couldn't win. And, then? Some which he did win. Put cash in his pocket. But stymied, just the same, what his brains would have bought, had he kept himself a bit cleaner.

clarice

Congrats to Chris Fotos who got a nice plug on NRO's media blog.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI1NjdmYzM0YmQxY2NkMmU2YTUyMzIyNmU4MDIyYTM=>Post Watch

Pofarmer

azaghal, I hope you saw the deconstruction here of Comey's letter last night--an investigation into a disclosure of a disclosure-HUMPH..Bafflegab designed to hide the fact that it was an open ended witch hunt and not about the IIPA..

Ya know, I didn't notice it in the thread the other night about the referrall letter. But. Don't ya have to wonder what part Mary O Mcarthy (MOM) had in making this open ended, inconspicuous referal?

pov

Hermans respond immediately:

http://psychiatry.medicine.dal.ca/dr.sadek/personality_disorders.htm

Sound of Music?

The five years isn't for the sources. It's for the agent, which is anyone who has been overseas and a federal employee.

Alcibiades

Fitz kicked sand in the jury's eye in the closing to make the jury less likely to notice he was wearing no clothes.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Telegraph obituaries are an art unto itself:

'He had a quality of stillness which puzzled his grandchildren. Asked to account for it, he explained that it came from years of handling dynamite.'

clarice

Patrick, all these incredible people the Telegraph writes of in these obits!

Alci, don't even think of going there..urgh

danking70

"Woodward connected journo was also once a neighbor of Russert's and that may be the reason for the rumor."

Woodward connected/Neighbor of Russert

If true, how the hell was this guy allowed on the jury?

clarice

For cause striking of potential jurors can't be done unless in voir dire you can persuade the judge that you have good cause. Each side only gets a set number of peremptory strikes which may explain why someone is on the jury who one side would rather not have.

***********

Other Tom and Mark O are apparently locked out. If you find yourself locked out from posting, here's what to do.

Write to help@sixapart.com...Give them your IP address and tell them you've been locked out. If you don't know your IP address..go here and they'll tell you. http://www.ipchicken.com/

hit and run

FREE OTHER TOM!!!

FREE MARK O!!!!

I am hereby on a beer strike until they are free.

ed

Hmmmm.

Not sure if a longer jury will result in a conviction really.

Consider this. The longer this jury takes in it's deliberations the more likely that situations will occur where different jurors will remember testimony differently and will have to refer back to the written record. The more times the jurors are forced to confront their own imperfect memories the more likely, IMHO, that this will not result in a guilty verdict.

topsecretk9

Try resetting or restarting your wireless or regular router - dsl box.

This resets you IP and things should be fine after.

Alcibiades

I am hereby on a beer strike until they are free.

Now that sound scary!

Alcibiades

good tip, tsk9.

azaghal

azaghal, I hope you saw the deconstruction here of Comey's letter last night--an investigation into a disclosure of a disclosure-HUMPH..Bafflegab designed to hide the fact that it was an open ended witch hunt and not about the IIPA..

Posted by: clarice | February 24, 2007 at 09:40 AM


clarice, I was under the impression that I wrote that post--or did I miss something?

danking70

Clarice, thanks for the reply.

But shouldn't this person been dismissed from the pool right from the start because of his relationships with 2 witnesses?

Before it even reached the selection process with the prosecution and the defense.


Pofarmer

Why hasn't Mary O McCarthy been mentioned with regards to the referal letter? She was in the proper place to dispatch it.

azaghal

dittos (dittoes?) danking70.

azaghal

Pofarmer, you're reading my mind. She dropped totally out of sight. What's up with her? Did she ever even exist or was she a figment of the MSM's imagination projected out into some sort of virtual reality and then withdrawn again?

Sara (Squiggler)

Wouldn't the reason the juror is a former Woodward subordinate be more important than the mere fact he is a former Woodward subordinate. If he left on good terms and/or with a good recommendation, then I say he is a plus for Libby as Woodward's tape and testimony is the most memorable of the trial. If he left with a bad taste in his mouth, then he can be a major influence against Libby perhaps as a way to "get back at" his former boss.

One thing he brings to the table is how Woodward expects a story to develop from investigation to print. We can all remember and relate to those scenes in "All the President's Men" where the WaPo editorial board sits around the table and discusses each new development. And how Woodward and Bernstein were sent out again and again to get 2nd and 3rd confirmations. I don't know about the rest of the jurors, but that would play in my mind when weighing Woodward against Russert as to reliability.

jwest

Open threads are a good place to admit mistakes….

I’ve got to admit, for a long time I believed that Fitz was going to turn on Joe Wilson. Some of you may remember a few comments outlining a scenario where Fitz would turn 180 degrees to save his career with a successful prosecution of Wilson.

This theory started with Fitz’s filing to Tatel on Val’s status. Tatel took the supplied information and acted as though the results would constitute a serious impact on the security of U.S. intelligence.

Fitz had indicated that he was “changing the direction” of his investigation. Information from a U.K. newspaper article indicated that Val was on a 1 year unpaid forced leave from the CIA. I interpreted that as being tied to her (almost certain) leaking of information concerning the forged documents to her husband. Joe was knee deep in the Kerry campaign just before he started talking with Pincus and Kristoff and I thought it would be obvious to Fitz what the real agenda of Wilson was.

Silly me.

Still, what could have been in the brief to Tatel? If Val was covert, Fitz would have surely made that fact a centerpiece of his case – along with evidence to support it. There is no reason for the CIA or Fitz to conceal any aspect of her real status now that her name and picture have been plastered on every TV and newspaper in the world.

Did Fitz embellish his filing to Tatel? What was the “forced leave” all about? How can Wilson explain where he came upon the forged document information? Was there any coordination with Kerry on Joe’s decision to “whistleblow”?

This case won’t end with the jury’s decision. I’ve still got some questions I want answered.

kazinski

When the jury asked for office supplies and pictures on Thursday they signaled that they were struggling with the complexity of the case. As an experiment early in the trial I tried creating a visio diagram showing the information flow between Armitage, Woodward, Pincus, Cooper, Russett, Dickerson, Miller, Rove, Fleischer, Gregory, Mitchell and Libby. I gave up after about 1/2 hour. I'm a systems analyst, I do this sort of thing for a living. And it is lot easier to do on a computer than it is with office supplies.

azaghal

This case won’t end with the jury’s decision. I’ve still got some questions I want answered.

Posted by: jwest | February 24, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Many. However, there are powerful interests who don't wish those questions to be answered, and certainly this administration has shown no taste or aptitude for publicly exposing wrongdoing.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

It's always good to remember "assumptions," are just that.

For all we know? Somebody in the jury room, when Russert's name is mentioned; and a juror pipes up at "how honest he is," loses more than he gains from the others.

Why so? Because to "believe" russert is to think these jurors are dumber than rocks.

At least one got the gist of where Wells took Russert, when he asked him how much he earns each year. For a non-practicing lawyer, the answer was $5,000,000.

And, for all you know? FLASHES occur during all that "speechifying" that goes on during the questions and answers, periods of time.

Heck, what juror wouldn't think, "where was I went that lottery ticket got handed out? Fer shur, just stuffing one's mouth with cotton-balls in the cheeks," handles, very nicely is russert is an honest potato. Or not.

clarice

azaghal:"clarice, I was under the impression that I wrote that post--or did I miss something?"
You started it, syl contested it, we worked it again..It makes no sense ar all except as subterfuge.

****

Mary O McCarthy--someone should doublecheck because I don't trust my memory on this, but I recall looking it up once and finding out that she was at CSIS in 2003.

***********
danking--somehow that juror persuaded the court that he could judge the case fairly.

clarice

Well, azaghal, check out Rush Limbaugh.com--he believes your theory and says he won't give up on this.
< a href=http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022307/content/01125103.guest.html>Azaghal!

He's got 20 million listeners, I believe.

clarice

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022307/content/01125103.guest.html>Azaghal!

clarice

jwest--I thought so, too. Except for the smidgeon of heavily redacted filings in the Hogan Ct and Ct of Appeals cases on the reporter subpoenas, we haven't much and won't get it until after this trial is concluded and Dow Jones' FOIA suit reaps this treasure, but I examined what we did have and believed it was sufficient to show it was at a minimum disingenous of not outright false and said so in my letter to DoJ's OPR.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Not so fast, Azaghal.

Bush isn't Kerry. When Kerry got the "first ball" to toss in baseball, he threw it like a girl.

Bush is a very wise man, INSIDE his head. And, he doesn't talk WORDS, so much, as WAIT. FOR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES ahead.

This story doesn't exactly die down, either.

And, all I can be sure of, now, is that the FOOD, on the government's dime is good. And, the jurors have special passes to get into the building. So, they're not for want, over parking spots.

This can go on for a long while. Or not. But are some in the jury room of closed minds? What would it take to pry them open?

Ah. And, what if it's the credentialed sluts that refuse ta budge? It's a jury room. Not an ivory tower. Or a gold plated toilet.

That the jurors are taking their time? Why not?

Still, a good attorney, like Wells, knows how to create enough dramatic moments. These are "recollected." More often than not.

While to some in the jury room? Sure. They've seen russert. But why bother? The man reaches a limited audience. One much smaller than IMUS, and Larry King Live.

Let alone, IMUS, who will milk this Russert "frying potato" for what it's worth ... IF ONLY TO THUMB HIS OWN NOSE AT HIS OWN NBC bosses;

There is, ahead, what can happen, which is similar to what happened to Dan RaTHer. Talking of which, yesterday, Little Green Footballs, again had fun. Posting that Howie Kurtz still doesn't know how to put on the bottoms, of a pair of pajamas.

By the way, t'day, Mark O emailed me with the EUGENE VOLKE (sp?)post that refers to the press; and First Ammendment rights. In a case where a kid who took a video of a rather violent scene in San Franciso, fought turning over the "out takes" to the grand jury. For what it's worth.

Real lawyers are following the in's and out's of Constitutional Law, as we speak.

And, Michael Dorf, Laurence Tribe's protege, wrote a book with Tribe on Constitutional Law. Which I guess, up to now, has been considered a very dry subject. Or a desert, out on which you could die of thirst.

clarice

"disingenous If not outright false and said so in my letter to DoJ's OPR**"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame