"The Note III" - As We Scrape Along

Let's have a new Note thread, following this one.

Here is Byron York's take:

...Everyone seems to concede that Count 3, the one in question involving Libby's conversations with Time magazine's Matt Cooper, is one of the weakest of the counts against Libby.  But what does the fact that the jury had a question about Count 3 mean?  The anti-Libby types hope that it means that jurors have already settled the bigger counts — against Libby, of course.  Those less inclined to wishful thinking don't have a clue.  I have tried to think how I would go through the charges, were I on the jury.  Counts 2 and 4 are Russert Counts, while Counts 3 and 5 are Cooper Counts, and Count 1 is the omnibus obstruction of justice count.  So it would make sense to consider the counts from 2 to 4 to 3 to 5 to 1.  It would make sense, of course, if one has read the indictment, which the jury hasn't, thanks to Judge Walton's decision that they wouldn't be allowed to see it.  So what is going on?  You got me.

Just so.  In my world, I would have disposed of the "easy" charges first, but maybe numerical order makes as much sense.

MORE:  Jeralyn Merritt offers her thoughts:

Here's what makes sense to me -- After a perusal of count 1, they move on to Counts 4 and 5, back to count 1, then on to counts 2 and 3. My reasoning...

Hey, follow the link!  A bit more:

Of course, they also could have just deferred considering Count 1 to first go through 2,3, 4 and 5 in order. In which case, they are probably not near completion.

As Byron says, we really don't have a clue.

I agree.  But this is much too bold for me:

I still think the jury could come back with a complete acquittal, a conviction on all counts, or anything in between, i.e., guilty on some counts but not others.

Evidently Ms. Merritt is comfortable ruling out the notion that the jury will return with a handwritten indictment of Dick Cheney (or Patrick Fitzgerald, or Tim Russert!) - I am not.

OK, seriously - I think counts 3 and 5 (the pure Cooper counts) are easy acquitals - they are "he said / he mighta' said" with plenty of reasonable doubt. 

As to the rest, the jury could (and IMHO, ought to) have reasonable doubt as to whether Libby sincerely believes (or actually) did hear about Ms. Plame from Tim Russert.  However, they might not also believe that the Plame news surprised him - in other words, they might reject the "I Forgot" part of Libby's story.  That would result in convictions on counts 1, 2, and 4, depending on how the jury interprets any "materiality" qualifications in the jury instructions.

GRAB SOME LARGE GRAINS OF SALT: FWIW, and I don't think it means much, the betting public has taken the odds of a Libby conviction on at least one count down from 75-80 to 70%.  That may reflect both a specific reaction to this note and a more general sense that each day that passes brings us closer to a hung jury (which sends the contract to 0.)

Comments

[clarice]

Maybe they're going backwards.Maybe they dropped the papers and are taking them out of order. Maybe they just like free steak and eggs for breakfast and the luscious lunches. Who knows? Not I.

[theo]

Me either.

[goldwater]

JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH WHAT IS TAKING SO FREAKING LONG???

sorry...I'm okay now.

[CH Truth]

I like the theory that they are still going throught the jury instructions, arguing every point on every page down the minute details. Now, after five days they finally got to page 74 and had a question...

Of course this would suggest that they really havn't neccesarily acomplished anything of significance yet, and we could be looking a couple more weeks before we know anything.

[TalkLeft]

I was intrigued by Byron's take and wrote about it -- and provided my take on which counts I would tackle first if I were a juror --

shorter version: start with 1, move to 4 and 5, then back to finish 1, and on to 2 and 3.

If that's right, they should be almost done, since their question was on 3.

The other option I think is look at 1, skip it, go to 2, 3, 4 then 5 in order, and back to 1. Which would mean they have a ways to go.

[CH Truth]

It would also suggest a very divided jury where every point is argued.

[sylvia]

I'm telling you all - Cooper is the one to be worried about - by process of elimination if not anything else. Russert won't fly because of the baggage - that leaves Cooper.

[MTT]

TM,

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Libby will be convicted on all counts.

Having followed this case along with the JOM crew since the beginning, I believe that the note should be interpreted as asking Judge Walton, "If there was any lying, that means guilty, right?"

Having served as an expert witness and seen how difficult it is to explain complex or sophisticated technical ideas to a jury, my sense here is that the jury is left to this very simple kind of understanding, even if it is wrong, "Lie=Guilt."

On the other hand, there may be one (or two) clever enough jurors who can see things differently, but given the polarization of our world today, the money (as evidenced by the markets) is still on conviction.

Sigh.

Or not.

I've been wrong before.

But that was a long time ago and I can't remember about what.

Just sayin'.

[T.J. King]

Maybe they thought when they sent a note to Walton and Walton sent one back, that they might get thrown out if they ask too much.

"This is a nice Jury room you got here, I'd hate for something to happen to it"

Never mind, we're just minding our own business here.

[theo]

In my experience most juries take a "straw vote" near the beginning of the process to see if they are on agreement on things and can short cut the process. Even if they do not do that, if they start going through things one count (or one page of instructions) at a time, it is natural to think that they would reach a point where they said "this issue is complicated and let's move on to something else that could be easier and circle back later."

In either event, the easy issues get decided first.

I really cannot imagine how they could be near the end of their process and be asking this question. If they had gone through all the harder stuff it should be obvious that the Cooper stuff is just not beyond a reasonable doubt. (Unless of course they suffer from BDS, but then they would have returned guilty verdicts long ago.)

Its very hard to figure what is happening and we are mostly just guessing. But my guess is that they have a ways to go.

[topsecretk9]

I just read the memory instruction Jeralyn is hosting... towards the end I couldn't remember the first couple and see how they all differed and then my eyes glazed over.

[Uncle Pinky]

Having been in cells more than jury rooms I can defnitiveley state that "steak and eggs" don't come my way all that often. And with my knowledge of industrial food, I would wager that the jury is no more happy than any of us. I hope that they are doing their sworn duty, but if you offered me Tournados a la Rossini for a quick verdict, ...well

[sylvia]

"that the Cooper stuff is just not beyond a reasonable doubt"

Wrong. Cooper is not compromised by baggage like Russert. It's about Libby's own words and at that point he spoke to Cooper, after having several conversations about Plame, something should have triggered in his brain that he knew about Plame from official sources. And if even that didn't happen, at that point he should have gone and looked it up to figure out who she was. That he didn't know about her officially at that point is not believable.

[topsecretk9]

Theo

They want to be considerate of the prosecutor.

I'm not of the mind these people are dense and CAN imagine their problems aren't as in depth as we think.

I think GoGeo nailed in the last thread.

[arcanorum]

they are enjoying their 15 minutes, trying to milk it for all its worth.

also setting the stage to be able to say with a straight face, 'we went through each count in excruciating detail before acquitting/convicting'. no doubt planning all the great cocktail party repartee that will be available as one of the twelve jurors. 'did I ever tell you about the time I served on the Libby trial jury, yessiree, we sure looked awful hard at that dadburn evidence...'

in the event of a conviction, I anticipate the supreme court will in the end take care of it. If they dont, Bush will pardon.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

What bothers me the most about this case is the presumption by so many that Dick Cheney approaches problems and/or his role as VP in a squeamish, impotent BDSer frame. There is nothing that suggests that Cheney operates in that fashion. He is a bull dog who confronts B.S. head on. He doesn't mess around with conspiracies and rumors. For gawd's sake, he has the power, almost all the power short of the President's power to overrule him.

In order to believe that Cheney and Libby are guilty (a BDS fantasy), one must first assume they are cowardly, silly children too afraid to stand up for their position and what they know to be the truth of the matter.

It is a crazy upside down prosecution. The person who should be on trial has been variously described as "obnoxious" "low-level" a "liar," and calling anyone and everyone blabbing his story to anyone who would give him the time of day. T

The CIA didn't know its ass from a hole in the ground and Tenet made it worse. State was doing a CYA and screwing things up even further. That Libby is being scapegoated is a fact, although he was wrong in thinking the WH was scapegoating him since it was Grossman, Tenet and the media turning the screws.

[arcanorum]

If Fitz squeezes a conviction out of this mess, I expect that he will be rewarded with a federal judgeship shortly after Hillary is in the whitehouse.

[Uncle Pinky]

When you have a leak, look for a grudge.

[Bob]

I think the jury is holding out until Easter... they plan on giving the Judge a Bunny!

[theo]

Sylvia --

We disagree. The weakness in the "Cooper counts" is that it is totally Cooper's recollection against Libby's recollection AND (and I think this is the most important fact) their recollections are not very different.

Cooper says that he brought it up to Libby. He also says that Libby merely said something like "I heard that too."

Libby does not (for present purposes) dispute any of this. He just recalls being more emphatic that he was only passing along what he had "heard" and that he had heard it "from other reporters" and could not confirm it on his own.

They both recall the same conversation. One recalls more detail than the other. Cooper's notes are either worthless or support Libby, depending on how they are read.

I do not see how a jury could convict on these counts given the "reasonable doubt" standard. It is entirely too plausible that EITHER Cooper or Libby has an imperfect memory of the conversation. Or both. This is not enough to send a man to jail, even if he worked for the Evil One.

[Patton]

They'll find Jesus' tomb before this jury finishes......

[clarice]

Most jurors do not get to take notes (or ask questions for that matter). These did. It is altogether possible that that fact changes the way the jury works. As I said on Thread II, it is possible that they reviewed their notes and recollections about each witness in order before beginning to deliberate the issues before them.
When I get a case, I start w/ the transcript and take notes and then review them in order before thinking about the legal issues.
If they did that, it would explain the request for the flip chart, post it notes and pictures of the witnesses. I think the foreman is organzing the deliberations in this way.

[Javani]

""(i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself)""

Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question? ""

Explanation: Libby lied to the reporters, admittedly. The jurors are asking whether the charge is that he made the statement, or its veracity.

IOW did LIbby lie to Fitz about lying to reporters.

[Patton]

I sure would like to know what exactly the jury decided based on their question? Did they decide whether Libby was lying to Cooper? But telling the FBI the truth?

[arcanorum]

"I sure would like to know what exactly the jury decided based on their question? Did they decide whether Libby was lying to Cooper? But telling the FBI the truth?"

That is my feeling of what they decided, and therefore Libby skates on this charge.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

That he didn't know about her officially at that point is not believable.

Of course it isn't believable since Libby stated that Cheney gave him the statement to give to Cooper and that he read the statement to Cooper before Cooper asked him any questions.

[gogeo]

Explanation: Libby lied to the reporters, admittedly. The jurors are asking whether the charge is that he made the statement, or its veracity.

I believe you're asserting that when Libby said "I've heard that too," that was a lie. It's not.

[theo]

It is not certain that Libby lied to Cooper. I believe that his testimony could be best read as suggesting that he told the truth (as he understood it) to Cooper.

[ErnestAbe]

Sara, I would agree with you that Cheney is not a coward, except for his refusal to serve in a war that he advocated, his handling of his shooting someone in the face and having that person apologize, and speaking for himself on background pretending to be just a "senior administration official) during the past day or two.

[Yet another lefty hero who switches monickers every few days lecturing us about cowardice... Let's see, "Uncle Charlie", "Puzzled Lurker", and "Rich", to name but a few, have posted from that ISP in the last week or so.]

[T.J. King]

I had the same fear as MTT. I thought to myself, what a bunch of idiots,..What does it matter if he lied to Cooper. In fact, if one thinks that he lied to Cooper and said "I heard this but know nothing", that would show he is refusing to give the information the authority of his position. It has no bearing on a crime other than to establish an alleged reputation as a liar, which again he is witholding information from Cooper that Fitz would prefer that he withold.

The other fear that I had was that on the easiest count to toss out, they have one of those annoying stonewaller jurors that is making up ridiculous and obscure reasons to hold their ground. The others gang up on the juror and say:

Juror:"Ms. Smith, for the fifth time, it doesn't matter if Libby lied to Cooper about his knowledge of the fact"

Ms. Smith:"Yes, it does matter if he lied, thats why we are here"

Juror: "Ms. Smith, not if he is lying to Cooper."

Ms. Smith: "So you are admitting that he is a liar"

Juror: "This is going nowhere, why don't we just give the damn question to Grandpa Walton and see what his reaction is"

Ms. Smith: "OK, fine"

---Next day--

Juror: "Can't you see by this note that Walton thinks you have lost your mind, Ms. Smith"

Ms. Smith: "OK, fine, let's move on to the other 4 counts"

Juror: "I can't take this anymore, get me out of here!!!"

[jwest]

From the previous thread:

…….I remember explicit instructions: "Your job is not to 'solve' the alleged crime. Your job is to weigh the testimony and the facts and the law to see if the State has proven their case."

Ya. Right.

Who on this earth is going to limit their thinking to what is presented by the lawyers and not be looking for the greater truth? That’s why we have juries in same room as the witnesses and defendant – they are looking for the truth in eye movements, hand fidgeting, surprised looks and guilty sweating - probably to exclusion of the lawyers statements.

Jurors naturally take what is unsaid (was she covert) as more valuable than what is said. By telling the jurors to ignore the elephant in the room, they must believe by simple assumption that she was the most secret agent in the history of the world. And, thanks to Fitz’s rebuttal, she was outted by Libby and Cheney.

[sylvia]

From indictment, to refresh our memories:

"...in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that: During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;"

As Cooper stands by his statement that Libby said "I heard that too". The jurors will have to decide if that is a difference of magnitude. Although the difference may seem small, I think there is a chance for conviction on this charge, However, Count 5 is stronger.

[gogeo]

Let me emphasize my prior point...even if Libby had Cheney speaking in his ear at the time, even if Libby had independent knowledge, the phrase "I've heard that too," is true.

[theo]

I think TJ King's explanation of the note is as good as any that I have heard. Of course, that does not mean that it is right. But it is a reasonable hypothesis.

But again there is nothing so sad as a beautiful hypothesis slain by a bunch of ugly facts. We will learn when this is over how close to the mark TJ is.

[Javani]

"I believe you're asserting that when Libby said "I've heard that too," that was a lie. It's not."

No I'm not.

And that's not Libby said. That's what Cooper said Libby said, which is verbatim what Rove claimed he told Novak, so Cooper's not credible.

The Cooper indictment is based on a long, rambling statement by LIbby wherein he catches himself not sounding right to the GJ, ie, when he describes how he sourced the comments to Cooper to "Reporters".

[Charlie (Colorado)]

but if you offered me Tournados a la Rossini for a quick verdict, ...well

With or without truffles?

[clarice]

Sylvia, to save time, could you, too, put your name at the beginning of your posts? Thnx.

[miriam]

The jurors have left the building
Orient Lodge- Libby trial - 8 min 14 sec ago
The word has come down at around 4:45 that the jurors have left the building. There are lots of speculations about what it could mean. They’ve reached a decision and everyone wants to go home get a good night’s rest and come in with verdict clothes tomorrow. They are close and have decided to go home and sleep on it. They have reached an impasse and are going home to cool off. Perhaps there is a special sale at a local store, or they are having early happy hour for jurors at a local bar.

Strike that: It is now reported that Judge Walton had a five o'clock meeting and sent them home early.

Meanwhile, we’ve been told that they will be shutting down power in the building at midnight for maintenance. Power should be back by 3 AM, or maybe 10 AM, depending on what happens.

[sylvia]

"but LIBBY did not know if this was true."

I think that may be the important difference in statements here if there is to be any false statement charge.

[Rick Ballard]

"I think the foreman is organzing the deliberations in this way."

Yep. And the smiles and frowns may have everything to do with the both side's reading of the foreman. Controlling the agenda is always fun and sending a question out rather than haggling it to death is not a bad practice if you're seeking consensus.

[clarice]

UPDATE* — THE LIBBY JURY HAS LEFT THE BUILDING. SEE YOU TOMORROW….
http://www.firedoglake.com/

[ErnestAbe]

TM posts:

Just so. In my world, I would have disposed of the "easy" charges first, but maybe numerical order makes as much sense.

Remember, it is not what would be easy for you that matters. You are assuming that the jury is predisposed to support Libby, but I find that unlikely. After the GJ testimony, if not before, I assume the jury was predisposed (as most juries are) towards the government case.

Therefore, I would guess that a jury inclined towards government case would dispose of the easy counts -- finding Libby guilty on counts 1,2,4,5 -- before addressing the hard one (count 3).

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Sara, I would agree with you that Cheney is not a coward, except for his refusal to serve in a war that he advocated,

He's a 66 year old cardiac patient, you moron.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, I'm with you on how the jury is working the case. On the murder trial where I was a juror, we took notes and could take those notes in to deliberations. We also had all admitted evidence in the room with us. The first order of business was to take a secret ballot on guilt or innocence. When that revealed a split, we then went thru the major evidentiary points and took straw votes along the way as to those particular points. After a couple of days, we had narrowed down to one piece of evidence that was the sticking point and we then spent about 3 days fine tuning on that testimony and related evidence.

[topsecretk9]

Ahem...I triad to make the same point as TJ in Note II thread about the note - but of course TJ comes along and does a better job.

[sylvia]

Clarice, I just wrote a nasty post to you, but I'll refrain. I don't want to sink to your level. Just keep on doing what you're doing and leave me alone please.

[gogeo]

Jwest, we both acknowledge that instructions can be overruled by human nature.

Sylvia...indictments assert, trials prove...the truthfulness of this one should be measured by the willingness of Fitz to allow the jury to see it.

[John Loki]

I am not a lawyer, but, IIRC, doesn't the Govt had to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Libby intended to lie, in order to get a conviction? How did Gerald Fitzpatrick do that?

In order to do that, you have to be a mind reader. I think Libby walks.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
LOL

[clarice]

I find in groups there is an irresistable impulse for some members to try to force an irrational result--and that can be overcome only by forcing them thru shutes from which the irrational cannot intrude. And the process I outlined for the deliberations is exactly what I'd use to get there.

I think the foreman is someone w/ a good sense of group dynamics.
If you make each juror put on each witness' page anything that made him question the testimony before you get to the specifics, no one can complain at the deliberation stage that the rational members forgot pink unicorns.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Cheney has given all but a few years of his adult life to service to this country. He has been a Congressman, Chief of Staff to a President, Secretary of Defense, Vice President. At what point does 3 months of cowardly service in Vietnam trump all those years of honorable government service?

[sylvia]

Gogeo, I don't have a photographic memory to all the jury testimony. In fact most of it was not printed in the media I saw, just summaries, so I have to go by the indictment to give me a framework to the case. "...But LIBBY did not know if this was true" is the kicker in that charge, as it shows that Libby took pains to act like he didn't confirm any leaked info to Cooper, which Cooper does not report. I'd say it's 50-50 for that charge.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Clarice, I just wrote a nasty post to you, but I'll refrain. I don't want to sink to your level.

That's right, we wouldn't want to sink to the level of a politely phrased request.

[hit and run]

Jeralyn:
I was intrigued by Byron's take and wrote about it -- and provided my take on which counts I would tackle first if I were a juror --

Thank you for coming here and being civil.

Really, that's cool.

Civil voices from the left are refreshing like a cool mountain breeze, especially in the fall when the aspens are turning.

Sorry, got carried away.

Anyway, thanks.

(oh and your link didn't work...but I think I can find my way)

[sylvia]

"That's right, we wouldn't want to sink to the level of a politely phrased request"

Please, it was sarcasm. Clarice is a real bully actually. It's sad that there's one in every crowd.

[Rick Ballard]

"...no one can complain at the deliberation stage that the rational members forgot pink unicorns."

Oh, sure they can. You forgot that they're invisible pink unicorns and that makes a heckuva difference.

Does anyone know who the 'identity' of the foreman?

[ErnestAbe]

Sara, I would agree with you that Cheney is not a coward, except for his refusal to serve in a war that he advocated,

He's a 66 year old cardiac patient, you moron.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 28, 2007 at 02:05 PM

Cheney has given all but a few years of his adult life to service to this country. He has been a Congressman, Chief of Staff to a President, Secretary of Defense, Vice President. At what point does 3 months of cowardly service in Vietnam trump all those years of honorable government service?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 28, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Is this a parody site?

(I guess Fox News hasn't told you about Cheney's five deferments from service in Vietnam?)

[clarice]

I don't know, but it's someone who knows what he's doing. Sara, were I the foreman, in such a complicated case, I wouldn't even take a straw vote first as that simply encourages irrational behavior.
I'd try to persuade everyone to agree on a procedure and suggest the one I outlined. (Facts agreed on first--deliberations and votes later.)

[boris]

Is this a parody site?

Are you a parasite?

Show us where Dick Cheney was a war hawk during Viet Nam.

[centralcal]

Sylvia, I just want to say that I am offended by your nasty remarks about Clarice, which are completely unwarranted.

[ErnestAbe]

Cheney has given all but a few years of his adult life to service to this country. He has been a Congressman, Chief of Staff to a President, Secretary of Defense, Vice President. At what point does 3 months of cowardly service in Vietnam trump all those years of honorable government service?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 28, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Poor Dick. He weaselled out of the the Vietnam War that he supported, but he has made up for it by years of government service and milking that government service for tens of millions of income from Haliburton's government contracts. If that wasn't enough, he has rewarded himself with nepotism jobs for his entire family.

What a model of public service he is!

[jwest]

Sylvia,

We can point you to site where actual bullies reside.

Perhaps you would like to compare and contrast

[Charlie (Colorado)]

(I guess Fox News hasn't told you about Cheney's five deferments from service in Vietnam?)

Yeah, yeah.

"In 1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the fewest since 1949. While Cheney was eligible for the draft, as he said during his confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was taking only older men."

By the time he would have been taken otherwise, he was married and Lynne was pregnant.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Ernest Abe: Who gives a shit about Cheney's 5 student deferments? No one that was living thru that period. My husband served 4 combat tours in Vietnam and a total of 26 years of honorable military service. No way, no how did any of that qualify him to be either Vice President or President of the U.S. It is the stupidest argument put forth by the far left ever voiced.

[Barney Frank]

Just out of curiosity Abe,

Were you fixated on the deferments of Democrat's who supported Clinton sending US sevicemen in harm's way?

If not perhaps you might consider being a little more honest and a little less
e(a)rnest, Abe.

[PMII]

Cheney is first class!

So is Sara S

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Please, it was sarcasm.

Well, in order not to be misunderstood, may I say, wholeheartedly and with all due respect, that you can kiss my ass?

[WA Moore]

Re: Cheney

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It is the stupidest argument put forth by the far left ever voiced.

Wow. That seems unlikely.

On the other hand, it's certainly in the running.

[arcanorum]

"Clarice, I just wrote a nasty post to you, but I'll refrain. I don't want to sink to your level.

That's right, we wouldn't want to sink to the level of a politely phrased request."

It was a rude comment, and undeserved. Much like your rude comment yesterday to another party who was trying to help decipher this complicated case, but instead has to face sarcasm concerning their hard work.

There is no need to single anyone out, do not all have equal rights to post here?

no need to respond.

[Another Bob]

Sara (Squiggler) | February 28, 2007 at 02:22 PM

Brava, Sara.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

no need to respond.

I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous remark.

[sylvia]

"Perhaps you would like to compare and contrast"

A bully is a bully. They all operate the same way. One thing I've noticed about the psychology of bullies is that they are all extremely territorial. For instance Clarice haunts this blog day and night and feels like she owns this place- like it is her blog. She feels that anyone who openly disagrees with her, and does not treat her with the standard ass-kissing is a threat to her power and to her "home" and her "safety". Bullies often react like that because they are not secure and in fear of their positions, and they wish to expell the perceived "intruder" to the "home" they have spent so much time building. They have an exaggerated attachment to a place- be it a grade school playground or a blog. It's a primitve, animal-like impulse actually, and somewhat interesting.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Oh please, Lynn Cheney is fully qualified in her own right to hold any job she wants in Washington. She is a brilliant woman. A hell of a lot smarter than Hillary and with a heck of a lot more class. And Cheney wasn't writing letters to his local draft board stating how he despises the military so he shouldn't have to be drafted. Nor was he standing in a foreign country spouting anti-war rhetoric while his own countrymen were fighting and dying in Vietnam. And he wasn't playing kissy face with the enemy either a la John "Coward" Kerry nor was he branding all returning Vietnam Vets as baby killers and war criminals.

[arcanorum]

"I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous remark."

thanks for the clarification, but I have little difficulty recognizing an asshole.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sylvia, to save time, could you, too, put your name at the beginning of your posts? Thnx.

this bears repeating. Pretty please with sugar on it?

[clarice]

Sylvia, I think I have never expressed personal animus to you though you repeatedly have to me.

OTOH I have yet to see a single sign of rationality in anything you post. It is not territoriality at work, it is that nonsense gives me a headache and I'd like to SOB it.

[sylvia]

"Sylvia, I just want to say that I am offended by your nasty remarks about Clarice, which are completely unwarranted."

Huh? She wanted me to put my name in advance of the post, implying that any post from me was worth skipping over- she didn't want to have to bother to get to the end to figure out it was from me. Sorry but she started it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

She wanted me to put my name in advance of the post, implying that any post from me was worth skipping over- she didn't want to have to bother to get to the end to figure out it was from me.

Sylvia, she's not alone.

[gogeo]

For instance Clarice haunts this blog day and night and feels like she owns this place- like it is her blog. She feels that anyone who openly disagrees with her, and does not treat her with the standard ass-kissing is a threat to her power and to her "home" and her "safety"...

Seek professionsl help.

[sylvia]

"Sylvia, I think I have never expressed personal animus to you though you repeatedly have to me.

OTOH I have yet to see a single sign of rationality in anything you post. It is not territoriality at work, it is that nonsense gives me a headache and I'd like to SOB it."

Okay- can we say IRONY here?

[Gary Maxwell]

No implication, but an outright statement. Please and thank you too. HMMMM

[PMII]

Sylvia,

STOP

[sylvia]

You don't have to like my posts. I do not like many posts on here. But at least show some intelligence and REBUT it - not act like a little kid and say "you're stupid". If you can't rebut it, then just ignore it. The fact that you don't do either shows that you are threatened.

[maryrose]

EarnestAbe:
You probably voted for draft-dodger Clinton in 92 and 96. Clinton also used back channels to get out. My brother served a full tour unlike Kerry who bugged out after a mere 3 months. My brother was in Saigon.and he didn't lie about his locations or how he got injured to get any medals. He did his job and came home.
Cheney has done a great job as VP and he was elected twice to that office.

[Uncle Pinky]

Dear Charlie, always with truffles. I know that some Philistines would suggest that champignon could substitute for the earthy benificence that truffles impart, but Pinky ain't buyin'. My relationship with duxelles is broad and deep, but that is not a matter to be discussed here (but a regular cussing...?) Currently I happen to be locked in Foster R.I. vs. my regular stomping grounds of McLean (yes, that is how we spell it) Va. Some of my sources are good, some bad and that is why I bow down to the clarician analysis. For procedural matters that are not court based, I may be able to offer some insight; but as this case seems to have nothing to do with cover, legends or any type of identity scrubbing, I'm at a bit of a loss. On the plus side, I do have pictures of me (very young and almost handsome) with Grampa, Francis Gary and Wild Bill, sitting on the back porch. Different times I guess.

[theo]

Sylvia --

"She started it" is not exactly an adult response.

The truth is that I have disagreed with Clarice here on occasion and have never been treated with anything but courtesy. You are failing to distinguish exasperation over disagreement and an unwillingness to prolong a discussion with someone who does not seem to be able to follow basic arguments.

We need someone like Clarice to keep the threads going. She cannot be a tyrant but she also should try to discourage those who are arguing with the neighbor's lawn sprinkler (a brilliant analogy, whoever came up with it). I think she does a good job in what are often trying circumstances.

[Syl]

I'm afraid Sylvia is one of the jurors, metaphorically speaking...and probably the specific one who had the question...

That he didn't know about her officially at that point [cooper] is not believable.

It doesn't matter what Libby knew or should have known when he spoke with Cooper. Libby could have known and LIED to Cooper. Libby could have forgotten and NOT LIED to Cooper.

But it doesn't matter if Libby LIED to Cooper or told the truth. What matters is if Libby LIED to the FBI and GJ ABOUT what he told Cooper.

[clarice]

Sylvia, since I find your posts nonsensical, it is enough to have wasted time reading them. Bothering to rebut them would be really a masochistic exercise.

[topsecretk9]

Sylvia

You are hilarious. At 1:46 you flat out told someone they were WRONG and then minutes later say you are just speculating, no one has to agree.

Personally, I thought the bully comment was bit like kettle meet pot.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

When I was a sophomore in college in 1964, the bulletin board at the student union was full of 3x5 cards posted by young men with tenuous grades begging for a bride because married men were not being drafted. All kinds of offers were bing made, i.e., marriage in name only, annulment after jeopardy had passed, etc. Later, married men were being drafted but married men with children were not. Also, my husband had two brothers, both got drafted after their older brother had already served his first and second
Vietnam tours and they were given billets in Germany for the duration of their service. So they can say they were drafted and served, but neither ever served outside Germany and were never at risk of being sent to a combat zone.

[JM Hanes]

I think Clarice is a goddess, but she can be a goddess with a sharp tongue too. While I share almost none of sylvia's opinions, I can't fault her for taking offense. I know I would have.

[TalkLeft]

I was intrigued by Byron's take and wrote about it -- and provided my take on which counts I would tackle first if I were a juror --

shorter version: start with 1, move to 4 and 5, then back to finish 1, and on to 2 and 3.

If that's right, they should be almost done, since their question was on 3.

The other option I think is look at 1, skip it, go to 2, 3, 4 then 5 in order, and back to 1. Which would mean they have a ways to go.

[sylvia]

"The truth is that I have disagreed with Clarice here on occasion and have never been treated with anything but courtesy."

I was treated well by Clarice for months as well until I had the "audacity" to disagree with her on the Duke case. If I had been so idiotic -don't you think she would have picked up on in the that the six months before our disagreement? No she's just pissed off that I wouldn't back down on that thread and she's being a brat and trying to take it out on me still. I have done nothing but try to ignore her lately but she won't leave it alone.

[Anarchus]

Count me among the fearful that U.S. foreign policy and military strategy are grossly tainted by demons until the last of the Vietnam-era baby boomers have died and everyone else has forgotten. Way too much waving of the bloody shirt nonsense regarding a past conflict that's pretty much irrelevant forevermore.

Btw, I was under the apparent misconception that Libby was on trial for lying to the FBI about leaking to journalists - until now, I hadn't realized that Cheney had stolen Kerry's top-secret spook hat and given it sylvia to torment clarice with . . . . . . or did I get THAT wrong, too?

[TalkLeft]

sorry for the double post, as Hit and Run pointed out, my link didn't work in the first one.

[sylvia]

Thank you JM Hanes. I am glad you said that because I consider you one of the most fair and enlightened commenters on here.

But again, I want to end this silly discussion. Let's forget this and get back to the topic. Pleeease.

[clarice]

Fine, Sylvia. Perhaps JMH is right. Post all you want w/o identifying yourself, just don't expect a response from me, and do not take my silence as consent or a failure to rebut. I tried to take sense to you on the Duke thread, and learned my lesson.

[JM Hanes]

TalkLeft:

Your comments are generally worth repeating!

[theo]

Jeralyn --

Not matter what order you take the issues in, I just am surprised that after four days of discussion they would be confused about whether the charge was that Libby lied to Cooper or that he lied to the FBI/GJ about what he said to Cooper. I do not think the individual counts are that divorced from one another. Its such a basic question I would have assumed they would have no trouble with it once they had been discussing the case for four days.

I think of the two options I would pick "we have a ways to go."

But we shall see.