Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« In Which We Usher Larry Johnson Into February 2007 | Main | "cboldt" On The Closing Arguments »

February 21, 2007

Comments

Sue

(OK, I am bitter in expectation of a Libby conviction ....

::sigh:: Me, too. Will it be quick? Or drug out?

elliottg

It's so easy to understand great evil when you look at the pablum people are willing to swallow.

Other Tom

The old-timer CW would say that if it's quick it's an acquittal.

clarice

HEH! Wrestling paraplegics again, TM

Other Tom

P.S.--At least I think that's what the old-time CW would say.

Tom Maguire

HEH! Wrestling paraplegics again, TM

Now, now - these are some of the leading lights of the left.

clarice

OT--You know I think you are right. I think I said the opposite the other night, and I was certainly wrong about that...early verdict does ususally mean acquittal.


I don't pretend to have any notion about jury selection techniques..but we have 8 women (one of whom I think is the reitred postal worker w/ whom Wells certainly connected at voir dire--in fact, her background is close to his mother's) and a couple of PhD's..interesting mix.

Sue

I think early verdict signals acquittal. But I'm not familiar with criminal trials, just civil trials.

Chants

Correct me if I am wrong. But did MW just try to take credit for someone else's work?

The hubris of newfound celebrity. Hard to match with her grassroots blogger persona.

Jane

What time did they go out?

It's really not fair to be so busy on the last two days of the trial.

Pofarmer

these are some of the leading lights of the left.

Hope they don't do much driving after dark, then.

Pofarmer

Correct me if I am wrong. But did MW just try to take credit for someone else's work?

That would be the left in a nutshell. Take credit for everything, responsibility for nothing.

Sue

Hope they don't do much driving after dark, then.

LOL.

Patton

This is the problem with you folks that watch Law and Order....that show always has them pulling the phone/cell phone records of the deceased/witnesses/defendant, and that just doesn't happen in Fitzworld.

Records would simply complicate things and its hard enough taking accurate notes.

It is so much easier to make a case just based on peoples changing memories that always get better at trial time and get really good when the prosecutor gives you immunity or promises to keep your getting in bed with him a secret.

arcanorum

Wheeler seems a bit rabid from my perspective.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/05/libby-live-fbi-agent-bond-six/#comments
post #39
"LOL. I asked a detail, mostly of David Corn. And Clarice piped in and said, “Oh, I’m sure yadda yadda yadda.” Even more so than normal, she had NO FUCKING CLUE what she was talking about. SHe was just making stuff up. And she suggested I check the JOM threads for the details. Turns out she asked them my question–and learned she had no fucking clue. So she’s probably miffed that I exposed her rank ignorance and willingness to make stuff up about things about which she had no fucking clue.

If that makes me an old time prohibitionist, great!!! I’ll take out my hatchets and rip through the lies and obfuscations. "
-emptywheel

Pofarmer

Thank you Patton,

I did NOT

Now I must leave to do something useful.

Pofarmer

Nuts

Rick Ballard

Other Tom,

I served on a jury that convicted in 20 minutes (it took that long for the bailiff to get us some water to drink). Single count and no doubts though.

Multiple counts and multiple elements have got to chew up some time. "Quick" would be by the end of the day and I really think it will be either before lunch tomorrow or end of day tomorrow, depending on the quality of the courthouse lunch.

maryrose

Well let's see if this is a fair jury or a partisan one. After TM's prediction of Rove indicted at 70%, I'm going to go with Libby acquited because jury is smart enough to see through Fitz's nothingburger case. Phd"s should know when they are being snowed.

hit and run

Prediction: convict on 22 counts in the next 24 hours.

maryrose

H&R
You are still cracking me up... Time to get ashes and eat lunch.

glenda waggoner

Why do the MW's of the world use such gutter language? I have my fingers crossed for aquittal/
Tom-loved you picking at scary Larry Johnson.I wonder how Tim, David, Andrea, and NBC are doing?
Hope they comprehend what they did to Libby for
"doing business as usual"

Rich

Can anyone verify the account of Wells behavior during the Fitzgerald rebuttal yesterday afternoon? In the video last night over at FireDogLake, the women claim that Wells had his face in his hands the whole time, not looking up once. Apparently, he didn't make any objections or participate in sidebar conference (Jeffries took up the slack).

Is this true? What impact will it have on jurors?

clarice

Reports are that Wells was very emotional after his closing. Obviously he'd left it to Jeffress to deal w/ the rebuttal.
I have no idea what the jury thought--probably that he was very invested in an acquittal for his client.

s

Joe was on the phone?

The Haiti legislation is pretty interesting, espcecially if Plame used there. I don't know why NSA would tap phones during the coup, unless doing a coup is illegal.

---------------------------------------------


"Yeah, Bob, it's Joe Wilson, the guy who took on Saddam during the Gulf War. He used to be stationed in Niger--facilitated the transition from military rule in 1999, too--so he's got a great relationship with the people named in the Niger documents. And he knows a lot about the uranium business."

Patton

Jeff seems to forget that Wilson ran away as fast as possible from having to testify, and thus Libby wouldn't be able to call impeachment witnesses.

You would think Fitz would have called Wilson/Plame to show the jury the 'victim' but apparently going under oath is not their forte'.

They may have had to tell us about all their meetings and discussions with reporters, and Andrea Mitchell, and Miller and Harlow, OH MY!

Can't wait till the Civil Case....then Clarice will be vindicated, again.

hit and run

Rich:
FireDogLake, the women claim that Wells had his face in his hands the whole time, not looking up once.


The unanswered question is, was Wells emotional about Libby potentially facing prison.

Or trying to hide fitz of laughter at Fitz' performance.

Christopher Fotos

Here is Maid Marion's account of Wells's (and Fitz's) performance yesterday. I don't see anything in there that directly answers your question, Rich, but it's a long post and i may be missing something.

clarice

HEH!
NRO has apparently duct taped McCarthy--they wrap up the case:
"By the end, it was clear that Fitzgerald’s case was based on he-said, she-said testimony from witnesses who suffered the same kind of faulty memories that Libby claims. And that’s before one considers that Libby wasn’t even the source of the celebrated CIA leak; the original leaker was, of course, former top State Department official Richard Armitage. That’s also before one considers that Fitzgerald was unable to charge anyone, Libby included, with any underlying crime in the case.

Is this any basis for five felony charges that could send Libby to jail for a maximum of 30 years? The answer is emphatically “No.” We’ve now seen Fitzgerald’s best evidence, and we’re more certain than ever: This is a case that should never have been brought."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWUxYThiOGMwNTQ1ZjljNWJhM2JiOTkwY2FiMGI2MGQ=>Case Closed

Dan S

"Now, now - these are some of the leading lights of the left.

Posted by: Tom Maguire"

In the darkest hour, any light at all seems a veritable beacon!

clarice

As to the improper reference in his closing arguments to things not in evidence--By DOJ's OPR standards, Fitz has engaged in more unethical conduct. Anyone who wishes to point this out to the Dept can write to US Dept of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Wash D.C. 20530.

"1. Improper Closing Argument. A court of appeals criticized a DOJ attorney for referring to in closing argument and displaying to the jury a photograph that had not been admitted into evidence. OPR conducted an investigation and concluded that the DOJ attorney engaged in professional misconduct. OPR found that the attorney acted in reckless disregard of the fundamental rule that argument must be confined to the facts in evidence. OPR found further that the attorney's reference to the photograph constituted impermissible vouching for the credibility of a government witness. No discipline was imposed because the attorney was no longer employed by the Department"

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dWsWkmPR-0cJ:www.usdoj.gov/opr/annualreport2000.htm+DOJ+Regs+Closing+Arguments&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us> Closing Arguments

narciso

He was running the transition from Gabon, right, no wait a minute, he was the admini-stration's trouble shooter in Africa, at the time of Rwanda, the Congo civil war,the uprisings in Zaire, et al. He had been there 20 years before, as the logistics
officer, the "Radar" of the group; if you
get the MASH reference. Now Jane is coming
up with the excuse, that Fitz would have
had to interview the extra journalists; boo
hoo, Then again, someone who's previous high point was writing the book about the
making of" Natural Born Killers" cant' be
bothered to get it all right.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

For the sake of discussion, assume a guilty verdict on one count and the initiation of an appeal. Would the appellate work be under the purview of Fitz or does it switch off to regular DoJ channels?

I'm trying to ascertain when this blight of a man will be finished with his "duties". Does he fold tent upon a "not guilty, all counts" or does he continue the quixotic quest by tilting at a new windmill?

sbw

Pofarmer: the left in a nutshell.

Apt.

clarice

Beats me, Rick. I don't understand why the DoJ let him represent it in his arguments about general policy in connection w/ the Dismissal Motion. It looks like he's on auto pilot until Gonzales' genito-dectomy is reversed.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

This case will produce reverberations, down the line. Because IN COURT, the DEFENDENT is allowed to FACE HIS ACCUSER.

And, those "accusers" only appear in the BIG CASE. Walton never allowed it IN.

Hope the jury does the right thing. But they sure can hang. And, that will give Fitz "da ball" to put in his pocket; and run away from clearing Libby's name. While also never letting this case appear in court, again.

ON THE OTHER HAND?

There had been some "fancy talk" that the AG, GONZALES, had a seat reserved for his "affirmative action" ass. As the court would then qualify UP an hispanic. Good luck to him! Doubt he has the reasoning ability to prevail on his ambitious endeavors, no matter how this mishap arrives on Monday.

CBOLT says the jury comes in with a verdict on MONDAY. (Ah. NOT IF THEY HANG!)

If they're hung? I think waltoon will put them up in a hotel; to debate round-the-clock, to "a" conclusion. Well, that's just me.

Pofarmer

Dang.
My post way up above should have been.

Thanks Patton

I did NOT need a picture of Armitage and Fitz in bed together in my head.

clarice

From Jerelyn:
" just received this email from DOJ spokesman Randall Samborn:

Mr. Fitzgerald will not be available after a verdict for one-on-one interviews or talk shows. We do anticipate that he will speak to the media after a verdict outside the Courthouse.

My main question which I hope a reporter asks: Is this investigation over? I sure hope the answer is "no."

Due to the length of Scooter's grand jury testimony and the voluminous exhibits introduced, I would not be surprised if this jury doesn't come back before Friday. I'm not going to make a prediction for conviction or acquittal. But, I do think a very fast verdict means acquittal and a very prolonged one means a split (compromise) verdict or a hung jury. "

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/21/13335/0191

Pofarmer

"1. Improper Closing Argument. A court of appeals criticized a DOJ attorney for referring to in closing argument and displaying to the jury a photograph that had not been admitted into evidence. OPR conducted an investigation and concluded that the DOJ attorney engaged in professional misconduct. OPR found that the attorney acted in reckless disregard of the fundamental rule that argument must be confined to the facts in evidence. OPR found further that the attorney's reference to the photograph constituted impermissible vouching for the credibility of a government witness. No discipline was imposed because the attorney was no longer employed by the Department"

Clarice, that seems pretty non-ambiguous to a non-legal person like me. Did Walton write his admonition about Fitz's close to the jury? And why did he let Fitz off with a "sometimes lawyers say things they don't mean to?." That's Bullshit.

I still wonder if it has something to do with Fitz's special special designation.

Pofarmer

I sure hope the answer is "no."

These folks need a hobby, or a life.

clarice

Whatever Walton said and did, the rule and responsibility not to do what he did is clear. Feel free to write the OPR..You can cite their own ruling to them and note that after a sidebar the judge was forced to issue an admonition.

The entire rebuttal was so over the top it deserves DoJ scrutiny.

hit and run

Pofarmer:
that seems pretty non-ambiguous to a non-legal person like me.


You an undocumented worker there on that farm?

clarice

OPR's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing allegations of misconduct made against Department of Justice employees which involves the core functions of prosecution, litigation, and investigation. Complaints against DOJ employees must be forwarded to OPR in writing. No particular forms are required. The complaint should include the names and titles of the individuals suspected of misconduct, the details of the allegations including case names, and any other relevant information. Complainants should include copies of any documentation they have pertaining to the matter. The information should be mailed to:

H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530


Patrick R. Sullivan

'Because I’ve long believed that if Fitzgerald gets to the point where he can prove that it wasn’t the NIE they were declassifying but it was Plame’s identity...'

How is it possible to be this stupid?

jwest

Clarice,

Is there any indication that Wells submitted anything in writing concerning Fitz’s closing statements? Was there a request for time to rebut his assertions?

Rich

I read Maid Marion's account of the closings, and there is no mention of Wells' demeanor during Fitzgerald's rebuttal.

I have not seen any other accounts in the media, so all we have is the FDL account. Can it be true that Wells was so emotionally distraught that he completely disengaged himself from the trial proceedings, head in hands, without looking up, and did not even get up to object to Fitzgerald's missteps (leaving it to Jeffries to object and to represent Libby in sidebar conference).

Has anyone seen any other reports that can give us some perspective about what happened?

How could a seasoned lawyer like Wells become so emotionally distraught? Could he really be that surprised at the prosecution's antics? If he is confident in the defense case, why would he look so worried and upset?

Pofarmer

Was there a request for time to rebut his assertions?

How? Have you read em? It's not assertions, it's a whole new case.

clarice

I only know there was a sidebar (sound blocked) and that the Judge then indicated Fitz had overstepped and issued yet another admonition to the jury.

(1) He made a repesentation about Rove's testimoy which was not in evidence
(2) He mischaracterized Shmall's testimony and made improper suggestions about Plame's status and "outing"
(3) He politicized the case, making references to Cheney and Bush not in evidence and which like (2) he'd blocked the defense from contesting at trial.
(4) He made claims about Wilson which were not only untrue but as well were false.

It was an outrageous, unethical performance.

Pofarmer

How could a seasoned lawyer like Wells become so emotionally distraught? Could he really be that surprised at the prosecution's antics? If he is confident in the defense case, why would he look so worried and upset?


Something tells me he's thinking, "These are great grounds for appeal." The head in hands thing could very well be to keep from showing a smirk, or just made up.

clarice

***Correction*****4) He made claims about Wilson which were not only not in the record but as well were false.

sbw

Those interested might care to consider the word "beclown." I first saw it on Tim Blair's website. Glenn Reynolds has invoked beclowning in a rebuttal. To be sure, it's the Word of the Day. We can point to so many -- Larry, EW, Cleo, Pete -- who beclown themselves with regularity.

Barney Frank

Rich,

Maid Marion responded to a question on the 'thanks clarice' thread and said she thinks Well's voice cracked at the end and he may have wiped away a tear but she said she did not see him hanging his head or moping the rest of the day.

clarice

I like beclowned, too, sbw.

Also I think befonged or befitzed are worthy of consideration for inclusion in any new lexicon.

dorf

Clarice: isn't alot of that the Judge's fault in the first place. He seems to have been intimidated by the Govt.

Rich

Something tells me he's thinking, "These are great grounds for appeal." The head in hands thing could very well be to keep from showing a smirk, or just made up.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it is necessary to register and objection in order to preserce the right to appeal.

During the other parts of the trail, it was Wells, as lead defense attourney who made objections for the defense. Why didn't he strenuously object to Fitzgerald's rebuttal when he overstepped? Apparently, Jeffries did finally object in a rather sheepish tone, if you are to believe the only account we have of what happened.

MarkO

Fitzgerald seems to be special in the sense of the "special" olympics. He must have felt the case slipping away to make the kind of political speech usually reserved for Boston Legal.

A while back I posted something about the judge seeking advice from his benchmates and a few of you took reasonable exception to it. But, I sensed a warm feeling toward Judge Walton. I think he failed to conduct this trial fairly and his "curing" instruction to the jury about Fitzgerald's rant is insufficient. It is too ambiguous. That argument should have been stricken.

Can any of you defend the judge? Now, I mean rationally and not on the basis of a religious affinity to a political question.

Tom Maguiret

Correct me if I am wrong. But did MW just try to take credit for someone else's work?

Well, no - she did her own analysis of the redacted document and reached her conclusion, after four months of basically insisting there was no way.

"MJW" also analyzed the redactions and had a similar result.

clarice

It is considered bad form to interrupt the opposition's opening and closing statements to the jury, and it is rarely done--and then only when it clearly exceeds--as this did--the bounds of proper conduct. (Unlike witness examination where objections are more frequent.) Jeffress did clearly object, and the matter is preserved for appeal. The various counsel have delegated different duties to different members of the team, adn this was clearly Jeffress' job.

Why? I couldn't say. Perhaps to leave the jury with a last view of Wells as an impassioned defender and his words undiminished by anything else.

Rick Ballard

"He seems to have been intimidated by the Govt."

I read him as being more irritated by the defense. His reaction to the tactical move of not calling Libby was rather telling. I think it was the best tactical move in the trial and caught "the smartest man in the room" so wrongfooted that recovery was out of the question but Walton seemed to think there was some sort of unwritten fairness doctrine that had been violated.

I do not regard Walton as being dumb by any means but I feel he is truly mediocre.

clarice

MarkO, he's an average District Court judge.
Average. This is probably the biggest case in his life and he is being very conservative in his rulings to avoid reversal.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

If, there's a "could be" scenario, where the jury decides to "convict" on only one charge;

I still think WELLS has a great case for APPEAL, due to the mismanagement waltoon carried out in his courtroom.

And, the biggest item to appeal? FITZ's status. Which, if it's an UNCONSTITUTIONAL appointment, wrecks the career of AJ Gonzalez, as well as Comey.

So, even if one jury comes back, the major case is still out there for APPEAL.

To say nothing of the potential, now, for other defendants, in jail for aggregious assaults on their rights to "face the accuser," get POPPED UP INTO THE SUPREME's lap. Why not? You've got Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. THAT'S FOUR VOTES RIGHT THERE TO BRING SUCH A CASE UP ON CERT.

As to Kennedy and Souter? Those guys go to bed together. But KELO shredded them to tiny bits. They may not want to play "provocaturs, in this game of chicken. Or chicken-shit.

Other Tom

One thing trial lawyers routinely tell their clients is, "always assume that at least one juror is looking directly at you at all times." Wells has sure tried more cases than I have, and that idea has to be second nature with him. Whatever he was doing--and I am uncertain what it was--you can be sure it was for effect.

"Beclowned" is a good one. Another one I like is "Plutoed," which some etymological association dubbed Word of the Year for 2006. Based on the determination of astronomers that what we used to know as the planet Pluto is in fact not a planet at all, the word is defined as "suffering a sudden, catastrophic loss of prestige." We can all now bow our heads is prayer for the imminent Plutoing of Elliott Ness with a Harvard Law Degree.

lurker

SCooter Who?, by Bryon York.

Subtitled: The prosecutor says there’s a “cloud” over the vice president.

Sounds like Fitz has ignored the fact that there was a document indicating that Plame recommended Wilson the day before Cheney's sidebar.

Think Fitz still plans to go after Cheney IF Libby is guilty on any one count?

Rich

Barney Frank at 11:00:

Thanks for pointing me to Maid Marion's comments at the "Thanks Clarice" post. If anything, she seems to back up the FDL account that Wells was emotionally distraught and disengaged.

Maid Marion writes: I had wondered before today's session whether or not "objections" could be made during closings...I guess so. Am very glad Jeffries did this, although he was a little slow to react.

I was wondering what the jury thought about this...how they translated the Judge's subsequent instruction. And I'm also wondering why it was Jeffries who stood up Had it been Wells, the jury may have paid more attention to what the Judge said.

I think the jury might come to the same conclusion... that Wells was emotionally distraught... buy why? Why would defense council be emotionally distraught, if he had confidence that he presented a winning case? Does anyone else find this troubling?

clarice

I think the reason he didn't go after Rove is that he knew he'd shot his wad on this stupid case. I do not see him going after Cheney. I do not see him having much of a career anywhere after this debacle.

clarice

Rich, he's got 8 women on this jury and probably all of them are in love w/ this sensitive looking guy. No. It doesn't bother me..

Jane

I don't think Fitz is going after anyone regardless of the verdict. It's a lot more likely he'll run for office somewhere, or join a defense firm.

Rick Ballard

"Does anyone else find this troubling?"

Not a bit. The adrenaline drop after the curtain rings down will leave you limp as a dishrag. Jeffress was tasked to follow the Fitzgibberish and did so in precisely the correct manner. Wells had nothing left to do and if his "letdown" was a bit theatrical it harmed nothing.

Other Tom

Rich, I do indeed find it troubling, particularly if Marion, who saw it, was troubled. As I mentioned above, I just have to assume he knew what he was doing. Note that she also mentioned this morning that there seemed to have been some sort of rift, however temporary, between Wells and Jeffress.

It is my understanding that this investiagation is still ongoing, because as far as I know the grand jury's term nas not expired and it has not been discharged. What crime Fitz might charge against Cheney is beyond my ken, given the legal requirements of the IIPA. I take it that Cheney could quite lawfully have instructed Libby to "put out the word that his wife works and the CIA." However, it seems clear from abundant trial and grand jury testimony that Libby passed up numerous opportunities to carry out such an instruction. In any event, we have seen that this fine fellow will charge anybody with anything, and leave others uncharged, just in an effort to keep all the balls in the air.

centralcal

Clarice: "I do not see him having much of a career anywhere after this debacle."

I certainly hope that is the case!

TimS

For the Bush administration, it would be best if Libby was found guilty on one part of one account.
Then the appeals would take up the next two years until Bush was ready to leave office. Bush could then easily pardon Libby, of the "inconsequential charge."

If Libby is found innocent, then the Wilson-Plame civil suit might go forward, if it has standing.

clarice

OT--I thought she said the rift was between Wells and Fitz.

Rick Ballard

"It's a lot more likely he'll run for office somewhere, or join a defense firm."

Or join Conyer's or Schumer's "investigative" staffs and keep right on going.

dorf

The judge helped try the case for the govt.

clarice

TimS--Huh?

The best reult is an acquittal. As for the civil suit, it will be thrown out as soon as the court next meets on the matter.

Jane

WEll I sort of want the Wilson civil suit to go forward. It's a perfect opportunity to expose the Wilsons for what they are. And it can certainly go forward if Libby is acquitted because civil cases have lesser standards of proof. So a Libby win in the criminal case does not have a certain impact on the civil action.

theo

I just do not see how they can charge Cheney at this point. If they are not going to prosecute Richard Armitage for leaking Plame to the press, then I guess they are not going to charge Cheney with that either. The only conceivable charge I think would be some kind of "process" charge -- obstructing justice, perjury, etc. But if Fitz did not have the goods before now, how would he have them at this point? If Scooter gets convicted and cuts a deal with Fitz and testifies "Cheney told me to lie" who would believe him? He would be a convicted perjurer obviously cutting a deal to protect himself. And if Libby does not "roll over" on Cheney just what evidence is there?

I think the BDSers just have to face reality. This verdict is all the Fitzmas they are ever going to get.

Jane

The judge helped try the case for the govt.

It sure looked that way from my perch, and that is odd, because most Judges, if they bend, bend over backwards to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial. There were several times during the course of the trial where I thought Walton was giving Fitz help because he was going to toss the whole thing. Shows what I know.

verner

Clarice: Rich, he's got 8 women on this jury and probably all of them are in love w/ this sensitive looking guy. No. It doesn't bother me..

I think it's only fair if they are in love with Wells--it will hopefully counteract the bias of those 3 PhDs.

jerry

TM is Bitter Man today!

If you read the transcript of the Armitage-Woodward conversation Woodward seems to be leading Rich:

HE brought up Wilson with Armitage

he said "(why does) that have to be a big secret?, Everyone knows"

he said "But why would they send him?"

and he said "Oh, she's the chief WMD?"

Woodward could have learned these talking points at the WH before meeting Armitage, maybe there are more indictments on the horizon?

I'd also suggest that Armitage then called the WH after talking to Woodward and reported "Bob says 'everyone knows'" etc....

Jane

Woodward could have learned these talking points at the WH before meeting Armitage, maybe there are more indictments on the horizon?

Actually he learned them from me. And I got them from Theresa Heinz when we were vacationing at the same time on Nantucket.

Rick Ballard

"Actually he learned them from me."

No, you may have confirmed them but I gave them to him on a flight Gstaad to Aspen (that G5 is sure a fine plane). We went there to watch the turning of the leaves...

Sue

Jerry is bringing theories from next door that aren't his, just for the record. And I'm not sure if Jerry is a he or a she, since next door Jerry is Kim.

Jane

No, you may have confirmed them but I gave them to him on a flight Gstaad to Aspen

WEll as long as we are all on the same team!

hit and run

Jane:
Actually he learned them from me. And I got them from Theresa Heinz when we were vacationing at the same time on Nantucket.


I. Was. Not. There.

And I took very specific steps to ensure that no one will ever be able to prove that I was. I covered my tracks, er, was never there with Jane at all.

Other Tom

Clarice, I hope you're right about the rift. But when you say it was between Wells and Fitz, it's like I was hearing it for the first time.

Concerning Wells's behavior after his closing, I'm sure all trial lawyers--and lots of other people--have heard the legendary account about Clarence Darrow. During the prosecution's close, he would light up a cigar (back in civilized times you could do that). Before coming to court he would have straightened out a paper clip and inserted it the length of the cigar. As the argument wore on, the cigar ash would grown longer and longer, gradually getting almost impossibly long. Before long every juror's eyes would be on that cigar ash, wondering when it would fall off, and the prosecutor might as well have been talking into a rain barrel. If Wells had his downcast head in his hands throughout Fitz's histrionics, I would dearly love to know where the jurors were looking.

Happy Days

One way-out theory of Wells' behavior is that his actions now allow Libby to sue for a mistrial on the basis of legal incompetence. The evidence given: He began his defense by stating "I must have been drunk." Then he disengaged from the proceedings and missed an opportunity to object, that Jeffers finally took.

But that would be like taking a dive, and somehow, I can't imagine that he would.

Rich

Other Tom, but that doesn't explain why Maid Marion found Wells behavior wierd. If Marion was troubled by Wells odd silence, then wouldn't some jurors react likewise?

Marion thought Jeffress seemed sheepish and late to react, and that doesn't inspire confidence.

Head in hands, emotionally distraught and disengaged, is different than lighting a cigar.

arcanorum

"Can any of you defend the judge? Now, I mean rationally and not on the basis of a religious affinity to a political question."

He was in over his head and doing the best that he could. Probably intimidated by Fitz as well as the media scrutiny (or circus), and he's from an area that is 90% Dem, so that is the echo chamber in which he daily conducts his life.

All that being considered, I think he did as well as could be expected.

I expect that he is also taking orders from higher up. (very suspicious how Mitchell suddenly avoided having to testify) I believe there is likely a widespread coverup so that backbiting incestuous mess that is the State dept and the CIA didnt splash into the news and embarrass all parties.

If there are any guilty verdicts, there are fertile grounds for appeal.

hit and run

Might want to tone it down on the trolls people. And Tom, pull it back a little on people like Larry and the Keep Hope Alivers.


States seek laws to curb online bullying
By JUSTIN M. NORTON, Associated Press Writer

Wed Feb 21, 1:13 AM ET


Rich

Lighting a cigar by Clarence Darrow would show confidence that you have reason to be self-congratulatory and expect victory.

Placing you head in your hands, averting your eyes, and disengaging for over an hour shows lack of confidence and a self-defeating attitude that you expect that you will not prevail.

I really hope the jury did not notice Wells. Perhaps Maid Marion was positioned in a way that Wells was more noticable to her, and the jury hopefully was facing Fitzgerald and didn't notice what was happening at the defense table.

azaghal

While I am truly appreciative for MaidMarion's firsthand account of the closing arguments, I found at least two of her comments to be, well, bizarre:

Wells (11:25 to 12:40)

1) Wells is awesome. Right out of the gate he was fiery and impassioned. Stood much closer to the jury box and moved back and forth. Was much more connected with the jury…talked “to” them not “at” them. You felt his need to pull out all the pent up emotion that was inside of him and his sincere interest in explaining his view of the case at hand. Very natural style.
2) “It’s not right!” “It’s not fair!” He’s appealing to the women right off the bat.
3) Juror #1 (black woman, wears hair up in a bun) had a more relaxed face with Wells. Most of the time she has been poker-faced, but with Wells she softened up slightly.
4) “If you want to be fair minded, look at Cooper’s contemporaneous notes.” He’s REALLY working the women!
5) Because Wells comes across as so likeable, sincere, and wanting to relate directly to the jurors, they immediately open up their ears. When he said “I’ve got a homework assignment for you” they were ready to oblige! Pencils were readied. It was great! They dutifully jotted down the cite.
6) The way Wells structured his closing was so much more helpful to the jurors understanding of his main points than Z’s chronological listing was to his. He whittled the problem down to “2 Reporters” and “2 Statements”. He was very smart to take the time to advise the jury what the counts were (in simple terms), the meaning of Burden of Proof, innocence is presumed, and reasonable doubt. When he said “The FBI stipulation is, in itself, all you need for reasonable doubt.” I thought: “There’s the home run.”
7) The main problem the Defense had was time management. Both Wells and Jeffries were racing to finish and had to pass over some slides.
8) When Wells said “Rove lied” about talking to Novak, the female juror (long black hair), who is normally deadpan, reacted.

What is being said about women here, and what is being implied about men?

topsecretkk9

H&R

I've got the emails that prove what a bully Larry is.

Alcibiades

befitzed are worthy of consideration for inclusion in any new lexicon.

as in, he befitzed his closing, that is, he took it so far over the top into lalaland, he lost. He befitzed his presentation and lost the account.

Or, alternate meaning: synonym to bewitched - a la Christy Hardin Smith

Obama befitzed his campaign workers; there was no virtue they would not ascribe to him.

arcanorum

"If Libby is found innocent, then the Wilson-Plame civil suit might go forward, if it has standing."

I dont anticipate that this lawsuit will continue much longer. If it is allowed to proceed, it is likely to be dropped (by Wilson/Plame) as soon as he/she receives an order to appear under oath to answer a defense request for discovery, concerning:
1. in how many conversations, with who, and when did they themselves reveal Plames CIA status.

2. When did Plame reveal classified information (the italian forgeries) to her husband, and what other classified documents did she disclose to him, and when did Wilson reveal details of these classified documents to journalists.

Jane

I think she is suggesting that emotion appeals to women, and I'm not sure she is implying anything about men.

Patrick

OT:

Good point about Darrow and what Wells may have been doing/thinking. If so, clever. If not, yikes.

Rich

azaghal. If you like those comments about women, check out verner's comments at 11:34. I guess women juror's will be swept away by Wells' charm and not bother their pretty little heads to think about the case. And what is he implying about PhDs?

centralcal

azaghal: ..."what is being said about women here...?"

Aren't 8 of the jurors women?

Alcibiades

Rich, for an alternate presentation of Wells, Milbanks at the WPost:

he agrees with FDL about Well:

The defense rests and not a minute too soon

Makes him seem emotional and out of control and batty and like he had a much worse case. I think he concedes something positive near the very end. Which probably counts for an even handed treatment coming from Dana Milbank, one of Olbermann's favorite guest reporters.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame