Stop This Wheel From Rolling

I have been advised that I will enjoy the Raw Story interview with Marcy Wheeler, now famous as one of the livebloggers covering the Libby trial at firedoglake, and whom I have praised many times in the past.  I certainly liked the opening:

BB: I didn’t realize how serious the loophole in Fitzgerald’s strategy was and how profoundly it affected the course of the investigation. But at the same time he probably couldn’t have moved forward without promising to limit the investigation to only known leakers. Talk about that, if you can.

MW: Armitage is the perfect example because people on the right always say how dare Patrick Fitzgerald didn’t find the Bob Woodward/Armitage’s connection. But had he done what he needed to do to find that, he would have needed to subpoena every single journalist who spoke to Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, Bartlett, Hadley, Condi. And you’re beginning to get into the range of things. They were all potential leakers and probably to some degree were involved. There’s no way you would’ve been able to subpoena all of that.

Oh, good point (where is my darned "eyeroll" key?).  But I have a different idea - since Armitage had confessed to leaking to Novak, and since the original INR memo which mentioned Valerie Wilson's connection to her husband's trip had been circulated at the senior levels of the State Dept in early June, why not ask to see Armitage's phone records and appointment calendar for June?

That may have seemed too complicated for Special Counsel Fitzgerald, but when the AP tried that incredibly subtle approach, guess what they found:

Then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage met with Washington Post
reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame. Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked ``private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.

Yup, those folks on the right sure do have unrealistic expectations.  So what is the guess on the left - did Fitzgerald ask Armitage about the Woodward appointment and get a, hmm, not a lie, a flawed memory?  Or did Fitzgerald forget to check Armitage's calendar?  Let's drag Christy Hardin Smith in for her swooning view of Fitzgerald's unrelenting investigatory technique.

Here, methinks Ms. Wheeler has been relying on the NY Times, or her own trial coverage:

John Hannah was a huge bust for the defense. They had a great witness, John Hannah, saying if Libby took 2 hrs on July 8 to meet with Judith Miller there’d be no way he’d forget it.

Oh, please.  Libby didn't forget it - it is all over his grand jury testimony.  What he remembered was the double-secret declassification of the NIE by Bush and Cheney so that Libby could leak the NIE to Miller, and Hannah never said anything different.   Here is Ms. Wheeler's liveblog:

F If he gave someone an hour or two, it was something Libby thought important.

TYOI WRT me, yes.

"Something" equals "wife"?  Really?  Couldn't have been the NIE, despite all the machinations preceding that leak?  Please.

More prescience:

BB: So predictions? Verdict?

MW: I think Wells is going to make a very concerted effort at jury nullification. In his closing statement he’s going to harp on: Rove leaked, Ari [Fleischer] leaked, Armitage leaked and they’re not doing time, they’re not even charged. 

Well, predictions are always hazardous, especially about the future.  However, Jeralyn Merritt had predicted that the jury nullification gambit would be set aside in favor of reasonable doubt and I had agreed (in her comments).  Check the reporting, make the call (hint - the defense was all reasonable doubt).

And let's close with this gem on the freedom of blogging:

And I’ve said this before. I wouldn’t want to give up the ability to say, ‘I’m going to speculate wildly. It is speculation, but here’s my basis for it.’ And I mean, we figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do.

Uhh, waddya mean "We"?  To her credit Ms. Wheeler did accept the evidence of her own eyes when faced with a redacted document.  Having been dragged kicking and screaming to this point, however, her supporting hypothesis fell wildly short of the mark - her guess was that Armitage leaked the info about Ms. Plame only as an example of the outrageous lengths to which Cheney and Company were prepared to go to shame Joe Wilson. Here, she attempts to imagine the Armitage-Woodward exchange:

Dick, Pincus' article said the CIA envoy was an Ambassador. Do you know who it is?

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.

Oh geez. He would know better than anyone. So how did Cheney's office manage to bury the intelligence?

Well, they're saying that Wilson's wife, who works at the CIA as a WMD analyst, suggested him for the trip. They're trying to suggest he wasn't qualified.

For comparison (OK, I am bitter in expectation of a Libby conviction - there, I said it!), here was my own thinking as of Nov 2005:

And, hypothetically of course, as the seniors at State retold their tale, the tidbit about the whole pointless Wilson exercise being orchestrated by his CIA wife was not a talking point - it was a punchline.

Listen to the tape of Armitage yukking it up with Woodward and make the call.

Grr. 

Comments

[Barney Frank]

--If you like those comments about women, check out verner's comments at 11:34.......And what is he implying about PhDs?--

Verner is a she.

[azaghal]

Call me stupid, but I thought she was saying that appeals to fairness

2) “It’s not right!” “It’s not fair!” He’s appealing to the women right off the bat.

4) “If you want to be fair minded, look at Cooper’s contemporaneous notes.” He’s REALLY working the women!

appeal to women, not--or not so much--to men. I find that an interesting concept and would be interested in the empirical basis for it. Ot is this an observation that women are more inclined toward jury nullification than are men? I'm interested.

[maryrose]

H&R:
Do you have an alibi for where you were when Jane was in Nantucket?

[verner]

Maybe Wells was emotional over all the evidence he was not allowed to bring into court--namely that nobody was covert, Russert said "he couldn't be sure" to the FBI etc., and Joe Wilson is a proven Liar.

Maybe he was also anticipating the dirty tricks Fitz would play.

[azaghal]

If I read verner right, she is saying something rather different than MM--although nothing she (verner) says carries any implication with regard to men. Here's how I read verner's comments:

Women as a class (since she includes by reference every single one of the 8 women on the jury, that seems to point toward the class as a whole) are inclined to buy any line that a sensitive looking guy offers them.

As for PhD's, verner seems to think they're smart and possibly hardnosed, even a little hardhearted.

Now, women PhD's? Another interesting question and I won't speculate.

[Sue]

As for PhD's, verner seems to think they're smart and possibly hardnosed, even a little hardhearted.

You left out they are usually very liberal and anti-Bush/Cheney.

[azaghal]

Perhaps a little OT, but his name does appear above:

Schumer
makes it official: He wants another Vietnam!

[Jane]

Oh geez, I just hate political correctness.

[Barney Frank]

Rich,
I think you are reading more into MM's post than is there. All she says about Wells is:

--Wells was choked up at the end…came across as sincere.--

Later on she wonders why Jeffress made the objection to Fitz's showboating and just says she thought it might have looked better if Wells had done it. I don't see anything about Wells drooling into his socks. Am I missing something she said?

[verner]

Rich, indeed I am female.

I was implying that, while they are suppose to be intelligent and educated, it is my experience that most PhDs in either the arts or social sciences are a) loony toon democrats if not worse (and I've got stats to back that up) b) gifted with a herd mentality.(Read any academic journals lately?) And in this case, have likely gobbled all the garbage press in the NYT and Wa Po before this trial ever started.

Give me a nice middle aged lady with common sense who watches Oprah and American Idol any day of the week!

[azaghal]

You left out they are usually very liberal and anti-Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM

I'd call that a reasonable inference. I've known some pretty dumb PhD's.

[Rich]

Maybe he was also anticipating the dirty tricks Fitz would play.

Then why didn't Wells stand up and object, like an adult, instead of cowering. He is paid $700/hour, and Libby, and this country, disserve better.

If Wells was understandably outraged, he would show it by objecting (or at least by shaking his head in disgust). But by looking distraught and diesngaged, he looked defeated, as Maid Marion, FDL, and now the Washington Post have reported. This does not bode well for Libby!

Jeffress eventially showed the jury, that yes, it is OK to object. Therefore, Jeffress belated objections may have only served to confirm to the jury that Wells was acting like a defeated man/boy, making Wells cowering look even worse.

[hit and run]

maryrose:
Do you have an alibi for where you were when Jane was in Nantucket?

Yes. I was surfing the web for Penelope Cruz pics. The only website I remember was something like lancelong.com or longlance.com? Something like that.

[Alcibiades]

As for PhD's, verner seems to think they're smart and possibly hardnosed, even a little hardhearted.

You left out they are usually very liberal and anti-Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Depends on what kind of Ph.D.s they are. Could be research Ph.D.s in a science capacity. In which case, they might happily be swayed by facts. And understand the limits of unproven theory.

And hey, not all Ph.D.s are liberal.

[jwest]

I would tend to give Wells the benefit of a doubt concerning his actions at the end of summations.

At his level, I’m sure every facial expression, tonal inflection and hand gesture are well thought out and designed to elicit the proper response from the jury.

On the other hand, I was kind of hoping he would rip of his jacket and shirt while telling Fitz to just “lynch us both now”.

[Publius]

In all the excitment of closing arguments did anyone else forget to celebrate
'Joe Wilson Day' yesterday?

Hey, where was Joe yesterday? Was he in Niamey? He seems to have a penchant for being there on the 20th of February, ie. 1999 and 2002.

[Sue]

And hey, not all Ph.D.s are liberal.

I didn't say they were.

[verner]

Sue:You left out they are usually very liberal and anti-Bush/Cheney.

Yep.

[Christopher Fotos]

Just passing through quickly right now, but thought I'd add that NRO Cornerites are piling on, and in my mind rightly so. Here's Mark Levin:

Byron York writes today that it appears Patrick Fitzgerald's chief investigative target had always been Vice President Dick Cheney, which became even clearer during Fitzgerald's closing argument.

I have said numerous times on my radio show that Fitzgerald was always after Cheney. He pursued the liberal conspiracy line, including embracing Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage, et al. And the reason Lewis Libby was in the dock, and not all the others with poor memories, was because Fitzgerald was angry that Libby — who had been Cheney's chief-of-staff — wouldn't give up Cheney in some kind of criminal context. So, Fitzgerald decided to punish Libby....

Fitzgerald has had the equivalent of a temper tantrum. And unlike the rest of us, he can abuse the enormous power of his public trust to act out. His conduct — from pursuing a non-crime in the first instance and making outrageous and inflammatory statements during his press conference announcing the indictment, to dragging reporters before his grand jury to prosecuting Libby — is a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct....

[Alcibiades]

Jwest: telling Fitz to just “lynch us both now”.

LOL.

I wonder how well that would have played!!

[Jane]

Speaking of "research Ph.D.s in a science capacity" (I've been dying to get this in) I presided over a case yesterday and one of the participants' job was to make "Smart land mines".

I thought that was fascinating.

[Alcibiades]

Clarice: I don't think that NRO is muzzling Andy McCarthy. I think he is away in Mexico. At least, he went there last week.

After all of his pleas for time and tolerance on behalf of his friend, he's got to be seriously embarrassed - if he has read about it - by Fitz befitzing himself yesterday during rebuttal.

[Alcibiades]

Clarice: I don't think that NRO is muzzling Andy McCarthy. I think he is away in Mexico. At least, he went there last week.

After all of his pleas for time and tolerance on behalf of his friend, he's got to be seriously embarrassed - if he has read about it - by Fitz befitzing himself yesterday during rebuttal.

[hit and run]

MaidMarion followed up with this when asked specifically about Wells hanging his head for the rest of the day:

I heard his voice crack and he may have let out a slight sob, also think he used his hand to wipe away a tear as he walked away from the jury. But that was all I saw...didn't watch him sit down.

[Rich]

Azaghal, for accounts of Wells' being emotionally distraught and oddly disengaged during Fitzgerald's rebuttal:

(a) Maid Marion's account

(b) FDL video account

(c) And thanks to Alcibiades, the Dana Milbank article in the Washington Post.

Of course, you need to take these accounts with a huge grain of salt! But the fact remains the Wells apparantly gave the jury the impression that he felt defeated, apparently because the prosectution was making a more compelling case. I don't see how else the jury would perceive such passivity. If he was angry, or indignant, he would have acted differently.... rather than hang his head in defeat.

[azaghal]

Oh geez, I just hate political correctness.

Posted by: Jane | February 21, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Give me a nice middle aged lady with common sense who watches Oprah and American Idol any day of the week!

Posted by: verner | February 21, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Actually, I am not at all PC and am very open to the idea of sex based differences--or should I have said "gender"? :-)

As for middle aged ladies who watch Oprah and American Idol, my impression is that they are conspicuously lacking in common sense. I base that impression on years of very regular blood donation (approximately once every two months). At the donation centers the staff are, in my experience, exclusively women and far more interested in watching Oprah than in paying attention to where they stick the needles. These experiences are my only exposure to Oprah, but from seeing what is offered up to viewers on that show and observing the rapt attention that the women staff at the donation centers give to the show, I conclude that watchers of Oprah must be singularly empty headed individuals.

If I were a defendant I think I'd be very uneasy at having jurors who I had reason to believe were more concerned with what was on Oprah and the fact that they'd have to wait till they got home in the evening to see it than with the facts of my case.

[sbw]

Byron York writes today that it appears Patrick Fitzgerald's chief investigative target had always been Vice President Dick Cheney

More like Javert than Clouseau.

[Jane]

From Mark Steyn:

Fitz of Indignation [Mark Steyn]

I don’t have much to add to Messrs Frum, Levin and York re the Libby trial, but I was taken aback by the politically emotive argument offered by Fitzgerald in his summing up, at least as reported:

Mr. Fitzgerald said the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity had left "a cloud over the White House over what happened" as well as a cloud over Mr. Cheney because he had been behind the effort to counter Mr. Wilson’s charges… "Don’t you think the American people are entitled to a straight answer?" Mr. Fitzgerald asked of the jury. He said that "a critic points fingers at the White House and as a result his wife gets dragged into the newspapers."

"A cloud over the White House" is a very nebulous legal concept. So is "the American people"’s entitlement to a straight answer about why a finger-pointing critic’s wife got dragged into the newspapers. Some of the American people think they’re entitled to a straight answer from the finger-pointer about why he lied about what he was told in Niger, what he reported back to the CIA, and about how he got the mission in the first place. But, whether or not they’re entitled to a straight answer, they have no legal redress over the issue.

Some of the American people think the real scandal is not that Richard Armitage leaked the name of the wife who landed Joe Wilson the Niger job but the fact that she landed him the job in the first place. What that reveals about at best the carelessness and at worst the corruption of US intelligence on the critical issue of the day is very dispiriting. Yet that section of the American people also have no legal redress.

So the emptiness of Fitzgerald’s argument exposes the essentially political nature of his case. The Wilson story – in which one man publicly inserts himself into the biggest foreign policy debate of our time, inflates and mischaracterizes his role in it, and then demands legal action against those who dispute his self-inflation and mischaracterization – should be self-parodying. Instead, even after it was clear there was no underlying crime, even after the Senate report, Lord Butler’s report and every other investigation rejected Wilson’s version of events, Fitzgerald went ahead and prosecuted for what his own summing up makes plain is a political dispute over a matter of current debate.

The criminalization of politics is for banana republics.

[Bob]

I think verner was specific when she said that PHD's in the "arts and social sciences" are mostly loons. The problem with these "artsy fartsy" fields of education is that there is no true science, it's all subjective speculation and derived not from facts or scientific data. Although some of the global warming scientists are starting to sound more like the other liberal wackos every day!

[azaghal]

Re Levin, York and McCarthy, some time ago McCarthy tried to talk down to critics of his buddy Fitz. Levin and York proceeded to give him a new one and from that point on McCarthy has been very subdued.

As for science PhD's, I've certainly known nutjobs in that quarter, too.

[hit and run]

Rich:
But the fact remains the Wells apparantly gave the jury the impression that he felt defeated, apparently because the prosectution was making a more compelling case. I don't see how else the jury would perceive such passivity. If he was angry, or indignant, he would have acted differently.... rather than hang his head in defeat.

Come on. It is not a fact that Wells gave a defeated impression and whatever impression he was giving, there is no way to assert that it was on the strength of the prosecution's case or closing.

MM's account gave me the impression of an attorney that cared deeply for his client. FDL is the only one who has reported head in hands, and you might expect another of the livebloggers or media folks present to have seen it and reported it if it happened.

It is entirely possible that it was agreed in advance that Jeffress would object if necessary, notwithstanding MM's wondering why it wasn't Wells.

Clarice has been very specific in saying that objections during closing arguments are rare.

There's lots of room for all sorts of different impressions.

But little room to say much of it has been proven as fact.

[Alcibiades]

Still I wonder what the argument was between Jeffress and Wells this morning and how it pertained to the trial:

For a while this morning, Wells and Jeffress appeared not to be speaking, but they appear to have kissed and made up while we were up there.

[azaghal]

Rich,

I disagree with the idea that Well's emotional finish could be read as indicative of a sense of defeat. I think emotional reactions in a stressful situation are more difficult to gauge than some might think. I doubt that the jury took it that way and suspect it was intended to convey sincerity and conviction, belief in the cause of his client and that he (Wells) was not simply a hired gun.

[Cecil Turner]

I didn't find Marcy all that over-the-top on this one. Except for this bit of silliness:

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, then you’re in the Constitutional issue of whether Navy vs. Egan, which is what Addington was using to justify it, whether its true that it can supersede all the procedures that executive orders lay out for declassification.

I'd like to think that an attorney could figure out that the Administration superseding an Executive Order was not a Constitutional issue . . . though it might be entertaining ("look, ma, that man is arguing with himself"). Her prediction of a delayed Fitzmas is similarly hard to feature, but I suspect that's more hope than expectation.

[dorf]

How is it that Fitz was allowed to say that it is not clear who authorized Wilson's trip to Africa? How is that possible??

[hit and run]

Rich - went back and re-read your comment. You most definitely put grain of salt in bold. Did I miss it? Well, when I saw you use the phrase "but the fact remains" I went to make my comment about little facts and much speculation. When I went back to read your comment, I was seeing the bold caveat of grain of salt as if for the first time!!!

[Tom Maguiret]

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

It is better to curse a single candle than to lift the darkness... I think. I am pretty sure about cursing these candles, anyway.

[royf]

Some of the American people think they’re entitled to a straight answer from the finger-pointer about why he lied about what he was told in Niger, what he reported back to the CIA, and about how he got the mission in the first place.

You have gotten that right Mark, And why is it that not a single "journalist" has ever asked those questions?

That's why I wish the civil trial would go forward but its a joke and will probably be thrown out. And even if its not there is no way Wilson will ever go under oath, I will bet on that with any moonbat out there.

[Sue]

Byron York at NRO:

Just so everyone knows what is going on in the trial: The jury began deliberating around 11:30 this morning. No word on anything yet. Court officials say that when the jury reaches a verdict, we'll get a 15 minute warning — that seems pretty short, but that's the rule that's been set. After that warning period, when defense and prosecution teams have gathered in the courtroom, we'll hear the verdict.

[Rich]

hit and run,

I Hope I am wrong, but it is not just Marion's account, and FDL, it is also the Washington Post article as well.

Can you find any first person reports that suggest otherwise?

If the defense had planned in advance to have Jeffress make any need objections during Fitzgerald's rebuttal, then why did MM and FDL all say that Jeffress seemed to be slow and sheepish, as if it were not his place to preempt Wells, the lead attorney.

Marion, if you are reading this, can you please help us understand why you thought it was odd for Jeffress to be making the objections (was it because Wells had performed this function previouwly during the trial)?

Clearly, Wells was anticipating that Fitzgerald would overstep, and present something "new" during rebuttal. Wells warned the jury that this might happen during his own summation. So why wasn't the defense team more prepared to object when Fitzgarald did overstep, instead of being so "slow" as Marion reports?

If Libby is convicted, I think he will have Wells to blame, for his antics (or uncontrollable emotional breakdown).

If Wells did this on purpose, why would he take such a risky move, when from where we stand, it looks like the defense put on an excellent case?

[Jane]

If Libby is convicted, I think he will have Wells to blame, for his antics (or uncontrollable emotional breakdown).

Oh Puhleeeze.

[Patton]

Funny how Fitz in his press conference (Accused Libby of being the first to leak)and in his filings with the court (Accused Libby of leaking classified information) and in his closing argument (Accused Libby of reading the DOJ guidelines) FAILED to following DOJ guidelines.

But then when he has to explain why he did such a shoddy job of questioning journalists, he wants to hide behind the DOJ guidelines. You can't have it both ways Fitz, you certainly had no problem violating those guidelines when it suited you.

[Cecil Turner]

So why wasn't the defense team more prepared to object when Fitzgarald did overstep, instead of being so "slow" as Marion reports?

How about: they wanted a full overstep, for appeal purposes? And sorry, but the way someone hangs their head seems to me less than definitive.

[Alcibiades]

For all that he was pilloried non-stop in the press, can anyone imagine Ken Starr pulling the kind of antics in court that Fitz did - the complete lack of dignity, the overstepping of ethics, implying that there was an unproven conspiracy that was not part of the trial proceedings in order to get the jury to find a guilty verdict, not due to a preponderance of guilt, but based on their political prejudices.

I really hope Clarice is right and that Fitz's career is over. But I think he could easily become a Dem appointee in any Dem administration that is grateful to him for the damage he did.

[hit and run]

Rich
Can you find any first person reports that suggest otherwise?

No, but neither can I find any evidence that Plame was not covert.

[jwest]

Rich,

If Jeffress seemed “sheepish” and Wells appeared emotionally spent, it is most likely that those images elicited the best response from jury focus groups in the hours of practice leading up to that moment.

These aren’t law students fumbling through their first case. They use every advantage they can find (and they charge for it too).

[hit and run]

No, but neither can I find any evidence that Plame was not covert

Whoops. Didn't mean that at ALL. Bad hit and run. Bad.

Was trying to make a "prove a negative" argument and chose words very poorly.

[Barney Frank]

Rich,

Breathe into the paper bag.
FDL and Dana Milbank are not worth getting light headed about.

[Patton]

As to how long the jury deliberates, I think we are forgetting to add the time that it will take to have their matching shirts made up with GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

And a side note, what is up with this judge in the Anna Nicole Smith bullsh-t. This hearing should have taken all of ten minutes to determine next of kin.

Whoever this judges boss is should read him the riot act and get moving with these idiots.

[Rick Ballard]

"Still I wonder what the argument was between Jeffress and Wells this morning"

Wells took time from Jeffress. I don't believe that Jeffress is nearly as comfortable at extemporaneous argument as is Wells and he may well feel that Wells did not 'help' by cutting into the time alloted for Jefress 'dry' presentation. Whether they are "over" a spat is also questionable. They were "over" it in front of the jury but that is onstage. Backstage may be something else entirely.

[Rich]

Q: So why wasn't the defense team more prepared to object when Fitzgarald did overstep, instead of being so "slow" as Marion reports?

A: How about: they wanted a full overstep, for appeal purposes? And sorry, but the way someone hangs their head seems to me less than definitive.

Any lawyers out there care to comment on how competent this is as a legal strategy? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it is the best way to (a) win a case, or (b) succeed on appeal.

My understandiing is lawyers are taught that sitting on your hands is not good for your client.

[Joe]

I think you all may be missing the boat on the appeal to fairness and such being aimed at the women. With the very brief exposure I have had to DC it seems that everyone either works for the government or knows someone that does. And they almost all have had a run-in with the petty office tyrant, acting with no thought of fairness or what is right only with what the tyrant wants. Casting Fitz as the office dictator, and getting the 'evidence' presented viewed thru that prism will almost assure a hung jury as the worst case scenario for Libby.

So it is about playing to the jury, just not their gender.

[Larry]

H&R:
Do you have an alibi for where you were when Jane was in Nantucket? Posted by: maryrose | February 21, 2007 at 12:09 PM Maryrose, since H & R denies being the man AT Nantucket, does that make him the man (away) FROM Nantucket?

[Sara (Squiggler]

Rich -- according to previous reports of the defense attorneys, Wells was perceived as a brilliant, very sexy advocate who had established excellent rapport with the jury beginning in voir dire and right through the closing. The man has been described as the ultimate professional and a man who believed in his case. Now, I don't see the sex symbol in Wells from still pictures, but it is a description that has come from many sources, so I'll take it that he has it. I happen to think Sean Connery is ugly and a bad actor who can ruin a good movie for me just by being cast in it, and yet millions of men and women think differently.

There is not one doubt in my mind that whatever Wells did, it was not perceived by the jury that he suddenly got overwhelmed by Fitz's presentation. From all accounts, Fitz was not a likable man with his sarcasm and arrogance always front and center.

Even if Wells virtually collapsed from exhaustion or from the emotional drain of having finished the fight, he is far too smart and professional to indulge himself while still in front of the jury. Wishful thinking for those who refuse to admit what a disaster and debacle the Fitz express really was.

Wells was most likely playing to the women on the jury, pure and simple. Why are you trying so hard to make it something it wasn't?

[Walter]

My understandiing is lawyers are taught that sitting on your hands is not good for your client.

You probably went to a different law school. My evidence teacher took great pains to emphasize the strategic considerations in deciding whether and when to object.

[Sara (Squiggler]

I also think that Wells and Jeffries were pissed that they were forced to rush their closing to meet the time restraints.

[Alcibiades]

Good and original point, Joe.

[sbw]

In all fairness, the jury should be given time to at least look at each of the exhibits. That means, guilty or not, no verdict today.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Well, at least words pile up:

FitzMagoo
FitzFonged
Beclowned
Pluto'ed
TUBBY

And, Judith Miller's contortion: "Well, not absolutely certain." The NY Times paid Bennett, too!) Talk of an expensive bottle of whine.

[Rick Ballard]

"In all fairness, the jury should be given time to at least look at each of the exhibits. That means, guilty or not, no verdict today."

Don't forget the 48 hour turnaround on the "I heart Libby" T-shirts. Friday afternoon at the earliest.

[Rich]

Sara Squiggler, maybe you are correct, but the only reports I have of Wells conduct at the end of the trial come frome 5 women, and all five found Wells behavior to be odd and not helpful to his client.

Those five women are Maid Marion at JOM, and the three women on the FDL vidoe last night, and Dana Milbank from today's Washington Post. (For links to their reports, see my message at 12:34.

As I have said, you can take the latter four women with a giant grain of salt, but Maid Marion concurs with them!

So, I'm not sure where you are getting your info about women's reaction, but these five women weere actually in the courtroom.

Please, I hope I am wrong and that you can show my why.

I seriously doubt that there were any focus groups that showed that Wells being emotionally distraught and disengaged would win over juror and give them confidence in the defense's case.

[steve]

Assuming the report is accurate, I could see the idea of letting Wells look worried. He's saying, "I really believe my guy is innocent and I'll be really upset if we lose. This isn't just another case to me." Might work.

[Alcibiades]

Completely OT but interesting news:

Italian PM Prodi has handed in his papers, offering to resign after losing a crucial foreign policy vote in the Senate.

Turns out his coalition members don't want to support troops in Afghanistan and the expansion of an American base in Italy.

[centralcal]

Heard on CBS Radio news awhile ago (commentator was CBS legal analyst Cohen) - (paraphrased):

when a jury comes back quickly that usually means a conviction. a quick verdict is a good sign for the prosecution.

Hmmm - seems exactly the OPPOSITE of what other legal experts are saying! Good old CBS!

[Another Bob]

Rich:

Give it a rest. You said you're not a lawyer, I'm not either. Many of those whose comments you're reading are lawyers and they don't seem especially worried about what amount to second- and third-hand reports of Wells' behavior.

After all the prep that was done (and for this case that might have included jury consultants, focus groups and who knows what else), the work during trial, and (if all else fails) Wells' prospects for future business, he ain't gonna tank the closing. He's done this before.

[Alcibiades]

Rich,

There was also the David Corn piece, on his blog somewhere, which, for David Corn, was even handed.

I think he makes more sense of Fitz than Fitz did, quite possibly because he was the one who hatched a great deal of the larger conspiracy points, so he understood it well, even without the framework. But i don't remember him pointing out the impression left by Wells as weak, like he knew he had lost.

Though come to think of that, wouldn't that play to the American fairness doctrine of "loving an underdog." Especially given the way that Fitz took to Libby and the case and judicial ethics with hammer blows after he finished his sincere appeal to the jury.

BTW, I certainly didn't read MM as saying that Wells seemed defeated. I think you are overreading her.

[hit and run]

Those five women are Maid Marion at JOM, and the three women on the FDL vidoe last night, and Dana Milbank

Dana Milbank may slap you for that.

[royf]

Rich

Those five women are Maid Marion at JOM, and the three women on the FDL vidoe last night, and Dana Milbank

\

Dana Milbank is a male, at least as far as is known LOL!!!!!

[mojo]

Somewhat appropriate:

If your mem'ry serves you well,
You'll remember you're the one
That called on me to call on them
To get you your favors done.
And after ev'ry plan had failed
And there was nothing more to tell,
You knew that we would meet again,
If your mem'ry served you well.
This wheel's on fire,
Rolling down the road,
Best notify my next of kin,
This wheel shall explode!
(Copyright © 1967, Robert Zimmerman)

[Another Bob]

Oh, and I'm positive he's not *that* invested in whether Libby is convicted or not.

[hit and run]

Rich:
Please, I hope I am wrong and that you can show my why.

Really? My impression was that you were in Keep Hope Suppressed mode.

[Alcibiades]

keep hope suppressed mode

LOL - well TM certainly is. Good way to save yourself disappointment afterward.

[Rich]

Ooops. Dana Milbank is a man. Just goes to show you how silly all this talk is about the gender difference in this trial.

[hit and run]

My understandiing is lawyers are taught that sitting on your hands is not good for your client.

Well, if [Redacted] were my lawyer and wanted to sit on my hands......whoa....stop it. Bad hit and run. Bad.

[MaidMarion]

"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."

I can't stay to chat...but just want to make clear that I did not look at Wells after he walked away from the jury box. From where I was sitting I couldn't see him at the Defense Table.

And my question as to why he didn't object instead of Jeffries was simply tactical in nature...not at all connected to Wells' state of mind.

I would point out--AND UNDERSCORE--that on previous days I DID see Wells face down on the table buried in his hands. And he was NOT distraught...

To repeat: I don't know if Wells was distraught yesterday because I wasn't watching him after he walked away from the jury box.

[Alcibiades]

Besides Dana Milbank and the FDL lot all experience group think. They essentially have the same set of political opinions, except that maybe the FDL also think that most journalists are eeevil, too.

SO the 4 there is comprised of redundant thinking.

[hit and run]

MaidMarion:
I can't stay to chat...

Well, whatcha doin later?

[Other Tom]

I don't think allowing the prosecutor to go over the top in order to aid an appellate case is a good strategy at all, and I am very cconfident that that's not what's going on here.

As I've mentioned, I knew Ted Wells quite well in law school, but that was a little over thirty years ago. After those thirty-some years, I still remember him as a magnetic, extremely likeable and sincere guy. That wasn't just my view; everyone thought the world of him. I can't comment on "sexy," but it would not surprise me at all if women saw him that way.

By the way, it strikes me as extraordinarily bitchy that those folks at FDL would mock him for saying "troof" and "wif," a trait that I sure as hell don't remember.

[Abu Al-Poopypants]

mojo: What's Rick Danko, chopped liver?

[jwest]

Rich,

Selling a jury is just like selling a car. There are no facts, no reason – it’s an entirely emotional decision.

Yes, both sides give the jurors facts during the trial, but facts are simply used to justify the emotional decision the jurors have already made.

Wells used his time with the jury during the defense portion of the trial to get jurors (remember, he only needs one) emotionally invested in his side of the case. During summation, Wells showed the jury that Fitz hurt him deeply with the slanderous things he was saying.

Those on the jury who have bought into Wells will punish Fitz for being mean to their guy.

[hit and run]

Other Tom:
As I've mentioned, I knew Ted Wells quite well in law school

Oh and in a previous thread you said drinks were on you for a JOM get together.

Make sure Wells gets an invitation.

As long as he ain't gonna just sit at the table and blubber. That would make all of us very uncomfortable.

[Patton]

You can google pictures of Dana Milbank.

Now that's a girl!

[topsecretk9]

test

[royf]

Ooops. Dana Milbank is a man.

I didn't say he was a manLOL! I said he was male.

Actually he might be more in touch with his feminine side than any of the FDL women.

[clarice]

test

[clarice]

test

[clarice]

test

[clarice]

I'm back!!!!!!!!!
I wanted to say that SD posted some of the pleadings in the Wilson civil case, and I think it will be thrown out on jurisdiction grounds (immunity). Also the Wilson's have failed to state a cause of action nor shown any damages.

[topsecretk9]

--By the way, it strikes me as extraordinarily bitchy that those folks at FDL would mock him for saying "troof" and "wif," a trait that I sure as hell don't remember.--

Seriously? Rape Gurney Joe? Blackface Joe? Creative hyperbole is about all Hamsher's got and she always resorts to it. Sad part is her readers take it to heart and believe it, in spite of the racist bigotry.

[owl]

Unless someone's finger on the off switch, I do not think Fitz is through. Presser, 5 Rove media blitz, blackmailing a WH for 3 years? That is a true believer aiming at the top.

[Sue]

H&R,

I hope you studied. Clarice is having another pop quiz!

[Syl]

Rich

I'm only half way through, but this is ridiculous!

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

First, you don't even KNOW if Wells had his head in his hands throughout fitz tirade.

Second, you don't even KNOW if he was emotionally distraught.

So what, exactly, is your game here? I'd say just making sh*t up for some effect on our emotions.

A somewhat obvious attempt to cast doubts on the defense team through an assassination of Wells via innuendo.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Rich -- I think you way overstate what Maid Marion said. In fact, as I recall her words last night, she noted that he ended on an emotional note, but didn't particularly notice anything much unusual afterwards. I think if his behavior was as blatant as the FDLers describe, MM would have seen it and commented on it. I don't see the linkage between Wells emotional finish and Jeffries being slow to react to Fitz, because we don't know what the reasoning was behind Jeffries allowing Fitz to hang himself.

[Daniel]

I guess that all that is left to us at this point is to wait for the jury's verdict.

If it is acquital on all counts, then to me it is all over.

But recent developments raise new questions.

1. Someone here described a case in which showing a picture not presented as evidence in a trial during summation was a violation of defendants rights and grounds for reversal of a conviction. In this context were the pictures of Novak and Russert shown the jury during summation entered as evidence? Is this grounds for a reversal?

2. More significantly, are Fitzgerald's political sounding remarks during his summation legal and ethical? Are they in themselves justification for a mistrial or reveral?

3. Fitzgerald is quoted as saying something about a cloud over the White House emanating from the Plame scandal during his summation. How can he dare say such a thing after keeping the fact the Armitage was the source for Novak's column secret from the public for more than three years? Publication of that information would have dispelled this very cloud.
I continue to think that Fitzgerald's investigation and behavior requires an impartial investigation itself, for it seems to exhibit a clear pattern of political bias and of decisions which were the very opposite of what he was supposed to do.
The administration expected a fair minded investigation of the leak that led to Novak's column, a public explanation of same, and indictments for anyone involved in it who did anything illegal.
Instead information as to that leak source was suppressed for three years, and indictment was reserved for someone entirely unconnected with it.
Most government employees cannot afford to spend millions to defend themselves even from the pathetic case that Fitzgerald constructed. They can be expected to do anything, including to lie and betray their employers to avoid indictment. Reports of fitzgerald's summation confirm my previous suspicion that the indictment of Libby was intended to force Libby to tell or make up some story embarrassing or incriminating Cheney, or at worst to bringing them onto the witness stand where they could be badgered into some misstatement to justify some further indictment.
He failed in this attempt.
It is known that he pursued it after consulting with Wilson who became a Kerry campaign worker.
These facts call outfor an investigation. If Fitzgerald was part of a plot to bring down the Bush, a plot carried on in cooperation with the Kerry campaign, I have no problem with it if he does so as a private individual. But if he uses his appointment as a Special Prosecutor to abet this activity he is abusing his office and should be prosecuted for it.

[topsecretk9]

Syl

Yeah, it's obvious and dumb - for what reason other than to conceal Fitz's schizophrenia complicated by his tourettes syndrome ? It's all I can see.

[Other Tom]

Clarice--Who and where is SD? I've read some of the papers in connection with the motions to dismiss (the defendants' reply briefs), but haven't seen their opening briefs nor the Wilsons' reply. But without seeing anything, I've been saying all along that that case will never reach the discovery stage.

[ghostcat]

I wonder how many of the 101 Soggy Dalmations know that Ted Wells is a Democrat, married to the NJ Secretary of State (appointed by Democratic Gov. Corzine)? Or that he grew up in DC, still in High School during the 1968 riots?

[clarice]

Daniel, I agree w/ most of what you've said, and again suggest people contact the DoJ Office or Professional responsibility to look into the ethical breaches in his closing.
As for para 1--no.Both those people were witnesses in the trial and there was no problem w/ that.

[Sue]

wonder how many of the 101 Soggy Dalmations

The ironies are lost on them. They want to have the baby of a federal prosecutor and swoon over an ex-spook with a Beatles haircut. Go figure.

[clarice]

OT--sorry, that Sunny Day . A quick hyperlink to her doc file is listed at Cboldt's.(Linda Cox files)