Powered by TypePad

« Who Stole the Strawberries ? | Main | NBC News And The Libby Trial »

February 20, 2007


Rick Ballard

Sorry about the chandelier. It wouldn't have happened if you had used throughbolts.

Rick Ballard

Sorry about the chandelier. It wouldn't have happened if you had used throughbolts.


Yeah. I beginning to feel guilty.


Taking bets? I'd love to put some money down.


TM, re Russert that's exactly what they argued per Jeralyn's summary.


"She said at one point she had never been approached by the investigation (or was it Fitzgerald?), but at another time she said she spoke with the FBI."

I'm surprised this point was forgotten in the filings on whether to hear AM's testimony.


seixon has some scary larry - lying Wilson's posts up...fyi



here's the perma link



TM: "I have a Bold Prediction about the defense close"

Hmmm, are you allowed to make predictions about something that is already over?


IIRC, Andrea Mitchell was not brought up by anyone.

I think it was Jeffress who argued your second point. He was excellent and extremely clear at debunking all of the prosecution points.

And then Fitz came in and threw sand in everyone's faces so they would be confused about what case they were supposed to be judging. Because his rebuttal sounded nothing like the case that went before.

The only question is whether the jury wants to be distracted in that direction.

On appeal, it won't be a problem.

Ralph L.

I believe the jury will notice which side is trying to confuse and distract them and draw the appropriate conclusions.


Can some body get me a link to the not a transcript? I want to read Fitz's rebuttal, and can't bring myself to wade through the swamp to find it.

Sara (Squiggler



You can read it on free republic w/o going to the swamp.



Here and here.


Thanks guys,

Bless you Clarice for the Freepers link.


Think nothing of it, Po.


Fitz is so focused on June 23, July 8, July 7. At least we are getting closer to the truth.

The beginning of Wilson's disinformation campaign is May 3, 2003: “Wilson, Plame and Kristof meet for breakfast. Wilson tells Kristof about his trip to Niger, on the condition that Kristof not name Wilson as his source.” “Kristof” is Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times reporter. Plame, of course, is Wilson’s wife Valerie, a WMD specialist at the CIA. Wilson almost assuredly revealed the identity of his wife to Kristof long before Miller knew.

To quote Kristof in his article, “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.”

How did Kristof corroborate this information, as all reporters do before publishing his article?

To quote Fitz at 5:09 today, “DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS. If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it.”

Carol Herman


THis morning, on IMUS, IMUS called Russert TUBBY. He used this name to GREGORY.

Gregory was IMUS' guest. Not "TUBBY."

But if IMUS is already referring to Russert as the fat/bully/guy ...

Isn't it possible that up ahead, Russert's $5,000,000 gig gets in trouble?

As to Madame du Greenspan. who spends time stroking "THE INVISIBLE HAND" ... what you DON'T SEE is more of a clue than you think.

How so? Andrea Mitchell can fold into the Invisible Hand, and drive off into the sunset. Leaving TUBBY to float alone. Since his career ahead literally can diminish. As does Fitz' ... which seems to have toppled over into a mishap of a rebuttal.

Shows ya what happens when goofy guys are given too much time.


TM, did you see this?
"In, "Trial Spotlights Cheney's Power as an Infighter" — the New York Times's latest irrelevant detour around the uncomfortable facts of the Libby trial — reporter Jim Rutenberg approaches accuracy in this account of the events precipitating the Plame leak:

Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were trying in particular to distance the vice president from an assertion that Saddam Hussein had sought large quantities of nuclear material in Africa that was ultimately deemed questionable.

Mr. Cheney was given ownership of the claim by a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who wrote in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that he had been dispatched to Africa because of questions by Mr. Cheney’s office. Mr. Wilson wrote that he returned from Africa highly doubtful about the claim and reported that to the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

When Mr. Bush repeated the claim months later — in a 16-word sentence of his 2003 State of the Union address weeks before the Iraq invasion — Mr. Wilson wrote that he was compelled to question publicly whether Mr. Cheney had ignored his findings because they were inconvenient to the case against Iraq.

Even prosecution witnesses have testified that while Mr. Cheney had asked for more information about the accusation that Mr. Hussein sought uranium in Africa more than a year before the invasion, he did not know that Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate. And, witnesses said at trial, he did not learn about the trip until Mr. Wilson began to make his case publicly. This might explain why Mr. Cheney was so intent on debunking Mr. Wilson.

Yes, the fact that a sanctimonious publicity hound was spreading lies about him might explain why Cheney was intent on debunking Wilson. Weak brew, but still startling to see it in the pages of the New York Times.

02/20 01:36 PM"


Cite for prior post:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWUwMDEzOWY3Yzc1OGNjOGI5OGZhMzAxODBiYmY2ZDE=>at last, the dawn

Other Tom

Tom and Clarice--It's time to say how grateful I am to both of you for keeping all the balls in the air here, and for acting both as a source and a clearinghouse for so much valuable information. And Tom, I think the fact that you were locked out of this place on this of all days is about as bad and unfair a blow as you could have been dealt.

Mark May 23 on your calendar. That's the day the Wilsons are scheduled to be frog-marched out of Judge Bates's court in the civil action. I'm sure the gang will all be here.



I read most of Fitz's ranting. It's almost all BIG CASE. What a piece of shit that guy is.


Could one of you sharper minds "fisk" (or "fitzell") EW's article "Indicting Dick" at FDL


People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it.”

That sentence is what I find disgusting. He knew who did it. And did nothing about it.


And to bring in Rove? With no testimony? Not calling him as a witness? Why didn't we have a mistrial on that rebuttal?


granny, not I. I venture there only when I must. It kills too many brain cells.


Also he alluded to Rove's grand jury testimony and the difference between Libby and Rove's grand jury testimony.

Was the defense even able to see that beforehand?

This is clearly beyond all bounds.



--Mark May 23--

I think it was changed to the 17th


Could one of you sharper minds "fisk" (or "fitzell") EW's article "Indicting Dick" at FDL

Ya mean the folks wanting to put the adminstration in jail and set terrorrists free? NO thanks, I'll pass.


Clarice, I guess that's what happened to my brain cells -- but I like going there just to get my blood pressure up, and after all, she "wrote the book"! (I'm grinning!) but I certainly don't intend to buy it.


I guess that's what destroyed my brain cells, but I go there periodically to get my blood pressure up. I just can't understand why they think they have this GREAT case against Cheney.


I'll add my thanks to TM and Clarice and just about everyone else. It's been a hell of a ride.

As to the question some keep raising about what we will do after the verdict is in, I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm not going anywhere.


Fitz from Freepers What are people suppsoed to say. Investigators already know that Russert said that never happened.

WTF? We know Russerts answer changed, and we know the notes are gone. This stinks.


SORRY -- Typepad did it



Either Fitz is addled with BDS, or he sure plays one on TV.


I'd sure like to know what happened to my ethics complaint, and if people are sending in updates.



Typepad is hanging-up and acting funky - hard to know if anything goes through, I know.


Not just addled with BDS, but addled even more with CDS!


ts,please keep a pacer watch tonight.



I have been. Nothing so far.

Ralph L.

There seems to be a requirement for drama these days. Law & Order CI just turned into a soap opera tonight. I prefer a "just the facts, ma'am" trial and cop show. Histrionics are a sign of weakness, if you ask me.


If you ak me, too.

Sara (Squiggler
3. I have long argued that Condi Rice's appearance on the Sunday, June 8 talk shows, where she was embarrassed by her ignorance of the Wilson trip (and offered her "bowels of the agency" reply), may have sparked inquiries over to State about the Niger story. Colin Powell was also on some shows that weekend and may have been similarly ignorant.

The story on offer from Marc Grossman is that Libby's inquiries, made in preparation for the Pincus article and in response to the Kristof May 6 article, inspired the INR memo about the Wilson trip.

But why couldn't there have also been inquiries from Condi Rice and Colin Powell, either of whom had more clout than Libby (but maybe less than Dick)? Did Fitzgerald explore that, and could it possibly be relevant at this late date?

TM -- I like this take, but then I'm very biased against Grossman.

Rick Ballard

Let us suppose ourselves to be juror #7, now sitting at home wondering what planet Fitz comes from. As we reflect upon his gargle concerning dead beachcombers, why would we not wonder a bit about the fact that Mr. Armitage is apparently wandering about a free man?

And, given the fact that the man responsible for the dead beachcomber is known to be Mr. Armitage, what investigation was obstructed? Or was the alien being making the closing perhaps being a bit hyperbolic in his close?

We need to help juror #7 work through his puzzlement in the next day or so.


Did Fitzgerald explore that, and could it possibly be relevant at this late date?

Fitzgerald investigated enough to try to get the OVP and Rove in a Perjury trap. It would appear that here his investigation stopped.

I hate this turn that our judicial system is taking. Having a judicial taking an active part in politics is only one step away from a Banana republic.



WTR to Armitage walking freely on the beach with all the sand, they are thinking

"How about that [ ]?"

hit and run

I venture there only when I must. It kills too many brain cells.

And it bears repeating that the only way I am going to kill brain cells at that rate is through the use of alcohol.

What time are bloody mary's in the morning?


The effect of denial and projection on the "reality based" community.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/02/consequences-of-denial.html>reality my eye

And the effect of the loss of Scooter Libby on the OVP (and us)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900863.html>A Big Loss Caused by a Big Nutter


Hey...I think it's time to recall poor old Frank Cowles Jr. - the victim indicted on the crime Fitz was investigating. Took Fitz 3 months to figure out he screwed up. Kind of puts his Fitz tirade in perspective now.


If ethics was Viagra, Fitz couldn't give a gnat a woody


Powerline says the smart money has Libby guilty.


See? See? Cheney did it! So convict that man over there 'cause I can't get Cheney! Waaaaaaaaah waaaaaah!

I want Cheney!

::stamping feet::

I don't care if that man lied or not. He works for Cheney. Convict him!

::wiping sweat from brow::

It's unfair! UNFAIR!

I want Cheney!

That man is GUIL-L-L-L::choke::L-LTY!!

::slumps to floor sobbing::

Then we hear sound of clapping hands. Heads turn. Wells is standing there with a HUGE GRIN on his face and clapping his hands together.


And the jury burst out laughing!!


Ah, but Powerline says "But if I had to bet a nickel, I'd put it on Wells."

And so do I.


My only major vice is that I don't gamble, ever.


Libby will be cleared of all counts because these smart jurors aren't going to fall for Fitz's freak show.


Whoa...EW in HalfBaked (Raw Story)

...“We figured out that Armitage was the Novak/Woodward source in March,” Wheeler said in an implicit critique of mainstream coverage of the Plame story, “and we were able to do that because we were able to do things that journalists wouldn’t do.”

Um...I could swear that TM predicted Armitage was Novak's source and EW snakred, mocked and did not like that TM said it was Armitage. Does anyone else recall this?



You know, after today's performance by Fitzgerald, I am no longer as certain as I once was that he will stop at Libby. Unless of course the AG's office shuts him down.

Ralph L.

Pofarmer said:
"Having a judicial [officer] taking an active part in politics is only one step away from a Banana republic."
There's still a big Gap there I think, but Searsly, it isn't as bad as Walsh indicting the week before the 92 election.


Ah..yeah..I thought so

December 14, 2005

Armitage and the Neocon "Where's Waldo" Game

One of the biggest reasons I question the Armitage speculation, as floated, is because of a little game the Neocons play, akin to and about as serious as "Where's Waldo." You see, Armitage is one of the Neocon's favorite whipping boys. When they want to deflect blame or just have some fun, they throw in a gratuitous Armitage accusation. I happen to be working on Michael Ledeen, so I'll offer two examples from him, but it's a move I've seen frequently from other Neocons.




Great catch, ts--Who's going to drop it in the swamp?


She ws using the royal "we".


I'm sure there was a question mark in there somewhere....


I dropped ts's post in the raw story hopper where I'm sure it will never get past the censors..TM, you ought to call EW out on that.


Ah, boris, the other two choices are funnier. (The royal we, the editorial we, or the we of a man with a tapeworm...)



Michael Oren's new Power, Faith, and Fantasy - a great book about ME.

I would like to add thanks to both Tom and Clarice for providing us the avenue to discuss primarily this Libby case and for Clarice to write excellent articles from an unbiased perspective based on extensive and exhaustive research.


Well, Fitz BDS and CDS assure him a prominent position a/o Jan 2009 if the Dems haven't jumped the shark by then.

BTW, the press is STILL doing it concerning coverage in Iraq. When CNN's Iraq reporter was talking about the car bombs that killed 3 of ours yesterday he said jihadis and quickly changed that to insurgents.

Multiple strategically placed car bombs going off simultaneously is an al Qaeda tactic. That was foreigners, not insurgents.

But, hey, there'a hardly any al Qaeda in Iraq, it's only a civil war.


Thanks Jane and Lurker

Ralph L.

And I would add thanks for answering our silly and repetitive questions.


Still hoping MaidMarion was there and will post her impressions.

On something like the closing, and the possible drama here, we need an eyewitness account.


I haven't seen many silly questions,Ralph,just a lot of sensible ones.



You are a gem, and have done a great public service. Thank you for sharing your great knowledge and experience.

As for Libby, the betting odds are against him, but if he is convicted on any charges, there's always his appeal. And boy is there a lot of room for one!

It is not true that Libby forgot 9 conversations. As was testified, with questionable accuracy, most of these so called "conversations" were no more than fleeting references,mostly concentrating on Joe Wilson, not the wife.

And the fact that Russert could have read Novak on the 11th, and Novak could have been the one who had a "conversation" that mentioned Plame is the definition of "reasonable doubt."

I am really eager to hear Walton's instructions tomorrow.

But no matter what the outcome--you done good.


(Am posting this to “Thank you Clarice” and “Strawberries” threads.

Was in court again today and thought I’d sketch out my basic impressions & observations. Haven’t looked at today’s JOM postings yet but will do so once I’ve finished here…

Zeidenberg (9:30 - 11:12)

1) Weak presentation…seemed more like a briefer than someone trying to sway people’s minds. Did not come across as especially confident or passionate.
2) His slides were mostly text…in somewhat of a bullet-type format. Very cut and dry except for the one visual with Libby’s photo in the center; sources on the left with incoming arrows pointing at Scooter and “leakees” on the right with arrows pointing from Scooter to them. As Z. painstakingly went down the list of Govt witnesses to establish WHEN Libby told them/heard from them about Wilson’s wife, I noticed that his text slides didn’t reflect any dates. The one and only date depicted on any slide was the one for Miller. There was no attempt to graphically depict the WHEN for the jurors.
3) When Z. said that Libby heard about Wilson’s wife four times in less than 48 hours I thought “Hey yeah! Most of this “incoming” data to Libby came roughly at about the same time”, which Wells pointed out later. Makes it all the more reasonable that Libby’d forget once the chatter died down after Pincus’s Jun 12 article.
4) Regarding CIA briefer Schmall’s annotation during his Jun 14 briefing at Libby’s home “Why was Amb. told this was a VP question?” I was left wondering what the answer to that was. I wasn’t present when Schmall testified…did Defense ever delve into that?
5) At 9:55 I annotated in my notes: “BORING!” and “Is Z. making Libby’s defense for him?” It just seemed to me that many of the points he was making were indirectly helpful to Libby…didn’t jot down any specifics.
6) Z: “Why would Ari invent the July 7 lunch with Libby?” “Libby never refuted having had lunch with Ari.” Thought this was a bit odd…it was as if he was throwing out anything he could think of in hopes that something would stick.
7) 10:10: Not much emotion in Z’s voice yet.
8) At some point Z. said that Libby “leaked”. My reaction: “If Libby had leaked then why wasn’t that in the indictment?”.
9) How did the Govt prove that Chaney handwrote his comments on the July 6th OpEd on July 6th?
10) Z. had a slide with Russert’s photo on the left, Novak’s photo on the right. It was an awful shot of Novak. Then the photos swapped places as Z. tritely asked the jury, in anticipation of Defense’s argument, how anyone could confuse Russert and Novak. I truly cannot tell you whether he was serious or not. He got a chuckle from the audience, but it was a meaningless comment vis-à-vis the jury.
11) 11:00: Same lack of emotion.
12) Motive: Even after hearing what he said, I cannot tell you what the Prosecution claims Libby’s motive was. Something about Libby didn’t want to embarrass the White House and force them to retract their previous public statements that no one in the WH was involved…where’d that come from?
13) Was relieved when Zeidenberg finally finished his chronological laundry list of people…not at all convincing. And unfortunately for him, Wells was next.

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.

Jeffries (1:40 to about 2:45)

1) I was disappointed with Jeffries performance and surprised since he did such a great job with the witnesses. Delivery-wise, it was almost as bad as Z’s. He was difficult to hear some times, due to poor placement of his mic, but he also had a tendency to eat his words so I worry that perhaps some in the jury didn’t hear everything. He’d also turn away and talk to his briefing slides when he should have been looking at the jury to emphasize crucial points.
2) Jeffries talked about the July 12 WaPo article by Pincus which referenced an Administration source and said Fitz mistakenly thought that source was Libby during the initial part of his investigation. Then, instead of pounding on that critical fact, he let it go. He didn’t underscore and bellow that Fitz had fingered the wrong guy…it was ARI!
3) 2:25- I’m falling asleep.
4) 2:38- Had a very effective graphic regarding Cooper’s poor notes. He showed how if one typed it correctly and with a few added words (…the graphic then actually typed out a modified sentence) you’d end up with Libby’s own words. But because he was rushed for time the essence had less time to sink in with the jury.

Wells (3:00-3:45)

1) Wells made a great point about the fact that Wilson’s wife became important AFTER the investigation began. I’d never really thought about this…and still need to think back on it. Unfortunately, he was rushed for time and this point didn’t get as much time as I think it needed. Perhaps a lost opportunity.
2) “Witnesses can’t help you to understand Libby’s state of mind in Oct 2003 or March 2004”. Another great point…but it may have been lost in the rush.
3) “What did Libby remember in October 2003?” There was a great graphic that went along with this…maybe Zeidenberg has learned some graphics training today.
4) #3 juror (white female w/long blonde hair) was nodding her head in agreement when Wells said that “every witness had memory problems.” Throughout most of the trial proceedings I’ve viewed these last two weeks, the jury has been virtually expressionless. Today was different, as I’ve noted above.
5) Wells very sincerely asked the jurors to “help” their fellow jurors in the event that they start to veer away from the Judge’s instructions. Also, at some point Wells recalled a smart question from one of the jurors regarding Libby’s memory. Very adept at connecting with the jury.
6) Wells was choked up at the end…came across as sincere.

Fitz (4:00-5:20)

1) Poor Fitz…had to follow Wells. So what does he do? Leads off with a booming emotional I don’t know what. It was embarrassing. But he was back to the old Fitz in less than two minutes.
2) I have a hard time listening to him: he talks way too fast and drops his voice every so often. I’d guess that the jury could follow or digest maybe half of what he was saying.
3) Several times he would look out into the audience…as if he were speaking to us…instead of the jury.
4) 4:36 – I’m dozing off.
5) Fitz was pounding on the point that Wilson’s wife was important to Libby; that he needed Wilson’s wife as an argument. I wasn’t quite following where he was trying to go with this…it seemed like a brand new point being introduced.
6) Fitz ended by saying that the Govt had proven Libby had a motive to lie… I still don’t know what the motive was.

My prediction: Libby will NOT be found guilty on any count. Have no idea whether the jury will hang or be unanimous. I simply think Wells succeeded in getting at least a majority to understand the Defense’s position and that he has succeeded in getting ALL of them to understand the concepts of reasonable doubt, burden of proof, and presumption of innocence. Because he connected with them so well, when he asked that they put aside their political biases or opinions about the war, it sunk in. I think they took that request to heart.


This is not an afterthought, it was an oversight, I add my thanks to Clarice as well. I wish you could have been there. Either in the trial, to show us the atmosphere, or the media room, to give us a sense of their view.

I'm still reeling from fitz Big Case performance...walking to the edge of a mistrial and perhaps even falling off.

And he had no Velvet to keep him warm.


Speak of the devil!



Can any of the comments made by Javert in the rebuttal that introduce information not brought out at the trial (Rove GJ testimony) or conflict with Walton’s prior orders (“big Case” versus “Little Case”) form the basis of appeal?

If the description of Nifong, whoops I mean Earle, whoops I mean Javert are accurate It looks to me as if he was throwing a Hail Mary. If that is the case then I would suspect that we will have a hung jury. Some of the questions, especially the one to Cathie Martin regarding how to handle the media when it refuses to print the truth indicates that there is at least one juror who gets it.

The more I think about this the angrier I get. One of the hallmarks of the Republic was the peaceful transition of power from one faction to another (well, except for 1860) and the independence of the judiciary. In their quest for power, the Democrats have had no compunction with crapping on both of those – one step closer to a banana republic.

Justice demands Libby’s acquittal, the destruction of Javert’s career and Lyin’ Joe and Secret Agent Girl being frogmarched somewhere. This is so much bigger than a perjury trap for the VP’s Chief of Staff.


From your mouth to God's ears, MM. (Or is that your keyboard to God's screen? Gotta keep up with the technology!)


If I had any money I'd put on Wells!

Thank you so much, MM!


Thanks verner and syl.
I think the white woman w/ the long hair is the art scholar and the black woman w/ the bun is the reired postal worker. If so, I saw them in voir dire. I believed at the time that Wells had connected very much w/ the postal worker. I cannot quite figure out the art scholar but she strikes me as an independent thinker who would want to be fair.
Wells is a magnetic, sexy man. Fitz--fuggetaboutit..


OOps, the art scholar has blonde hair, wrong juror.


YEAH...MaidMarion --

thank you SOOO much for your time and sharing with us. A few of us have been hoping you'd pop in with one of your great observations.



Thank you for posting your experience today.

Something I never quite got the answer to was whether the lawyers saw all of the questions the jurors were asking or only the ones that were allowed. If they saw all of them, I wonder if there was something in the ones we didn't hear that caused Fitzgerald to throw everything he could get away with into his rebuttal? Maybe he didn't like the direction the questions were going, if they actually saw all of the questions.

Ralph L.

Great observations.
The second person to say the photo of Novak was awful--were his horns showing?
Typical Yankee, not realizing that southerners speak slower (not Gore-slow). Though Reagan made the same mistake.


If I were Walton, those unasked questions would go in my robes and never be seen at all.


My prediction: Libby will NOT be found guilty on any count.

I so hope you are right. I want to see the left explode! And I want the jurors talking to the media, explaining their reasons for acquittal. Anyway, thanks again for doing what we couldn't do.



"Something I never quite got the answer to was whether the lawyers saw all of the questions the jurors were asking or only the ones that were allowed."

The Judge would review the jurors' questions with both sets of lawyers together (snowed sidebars). It appeared as though acceptance/rejection was a group decision.

Long Lance

What a great help it was to hear from Maid Marion. For me at least, it has been impossible to get even the slightest inkling of the tenor of the attorneys' presentations or, more important, the jurors' reactions to them. Probably MM is as biased as I am, but she's coldly objective compared to the FDL cheerleaders. Seeing a juror nod, or soften the facial expression, is a very hopeful sign. I would love to know about their literal body language: for which presentations were they leaning forward, and for which, if any, were they leaning away from the lawyer? Maybe, MM, if you read this, you could tell us something along those lines. Thank goodness for all of us that you were actually present. Trying to follow a trial's progress through all these filters has been most difficult.

What a wonderful job has been done by so many here. If we could ever convene as a group, the first round of Stoli martinis up, shaken forty times, one olive, is on me.

Tom Maguire

Hmmm, are you allowed to make predictions about something that is already over?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Valerie Plame?



Thanks. Then maybe Fitz didn't like the direction the jurors seemed to be going and went for his own jury nullification, something Ms. Smith doesn't address at the swamp. Only defense trying for jury nullification.



FDL detailed Fitz veering off into big case (21 year old exposed on the beach - danger - I still think it's very odd) and then a sidebar - wherein the Judge pointed out Fitz didn't mean all the things he said.

How did this play out?

Other Tom

Jesus--my post a couple of minutes ago came out as "Long Lance." That was me, friends--I promise. And just in case, let me thank Maid Marion again using my real name.



It's 5:00 somewhere....

So why wait until the AM for cocktails?


MM said:

****#3 juror (white female w/long blonde hair) was nodding her head in agreement when Wells said that “every witness had memory problems.”****

Thanks, MM, I needed that. Now I can have a good night's rest, confident that at worst we'll get a hung jury. I still predict full acquittal on all counts.


--Was it over when the Germans bombed Valerie Plame?

Posted by: Tom Maguire | February 20, 2007 at 08:52 PM--


"Forget it, he's on a roll."

Other Tom

If the esteemed professor Juan Cole can discern that the 9/1/2001 attacks were caused by the April, 2002 Jenin "massacre," I think it's only fair to allow us to predict the past here.


So far David Corn has the best account of both the defense and prosecution's summations. Very good job given the short time frame. Any comments about liberal bias can take a hike. If you don't want to read the piece don't, but don't critize something you haven't read.



I just noticed the first line of TM's post, do you suppose he's burned his jammies and is posting in the altogether?


I've read numerous comments about Fitz's story of the 21 year old on the beach. It's not like some have been taking it.

Fitz was playing off a defense example of someone being on a vacation at the beach and having to remember a conversation 3 or 4 months later.

Fitz is saying that if it was a conversation that would lead to kidnapping, torturing, and killing of covert CIA agents, you'd remember it.

It wasn't the mythical 21-year-old who was going to be killed. He was the guy who had made the dangerous leak that would get a CIA agent killed.

Anyway, it was a despicable tactic of Fitz's and he should have been slapped down hard for it, but of course Walton did precious little.

Ralph L.

OT chasing MM with his LL. HeHe.


I actually like the "Lance Long" moniker...you sound like an AHEM important AHEM type of actor and I LL with Off Topic (OT)

The comments to this entry are closed.