Powered by TypePad

« "The Note II" - Seven Days After Hearing About It, You Die... Of Boredom | Main | Jury Instructions »

February 28, 2007

Comments

Tom Maguire

You are assuming that the jury is predisposed to support Libby, but I find that unlikely.

I find your idiocy highly likely; however, I am assuming nothing about the jury's pre-dispositions.

The Cooper charges are he-said/he said. If that is hard to resolve, the rest is impossible.

SanJoseLawyer

Arcanorum makes the excellent point (an hour back) that the jurors are “enjoying their 15 minutes” and/or “setting the stage to be able to say . . . 'we went through each count in excruciating detail.’”

The jurors cannot help but be aware of the intense scrutiny that the MSM will continue to give this case, even after the verdict, and those jurors with a reasonable awareness of how the media operate can already imagine that an acquittal will result in them being labeled another “OJ jury”, idiots, or worse.

If they are thinking this way, it will obviously tend to bias their thinking, and would bode ill for Libby.

However, if they are inclined to acquit, the apparent seriousness with which they are reviewing all of the evidence might be explained as an effort to insulate themselves from post trial criticism, which would be especially acute after an acquittal.

MSM will describe this case as a glowing example of the ability of the American judicial system to get to the truth and to do justice, if there is a conviction. It will be "OJ all over again," and a gross miscarriage of justice, if there is an acquittal.

The fact that we need to be concerned about this at all points to one of the many weaknesses in the jury system. Too bad we don’t have anything that is better.

centralcal

Sylvia - enough. You are acting like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum.

Take a time out.

topsecretk9

Wait a second, did anyone read Sylvia's very rude response to Theo's polite 1:41 comment?

WRONG!

Anyways, that has been the pattern I have witnessed many times, so excuse me if I am not persuaded the contribution is just honest disagreement.

sylvia

The "wrong" was rude? It's just emphatic or "drama" to me. I also respect Theo very much as a commenter so I wasn't trying to be rude on purpose. Sorry if it came across that way.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sylvia, although I have seen some of what you accuse Clarice, I don't think she does it for the reasons you suggest and I think she deserves a great deal of credit for the expertise she brings to this blog. I think it is the shorthand for I'm not interested and we all feel that way sometimes. There are a couple of others here though who are downright mean and hateful and I'm not talking the trolls. I've been the object of their ad hom attacks on more than one occasion when they take themselves so seriously. I find their arrogance and supercilious hypocrisy very amusing and tend to laugh about it as I read and respond to their posts, unfortunately no one sees my smiles, my winks, or my tongue in cheek and this pisses them off even more which in turn makes me laugh even harder.

MarkO

Because I have teenage children I have learned better than to respond to Sylvia.

And, to quote Rodney, this is why tigers eat their young.

PMII

Has anyone heard that Cheney is taking Judge Walton hunting this weekend? Fitz was invited but plans to be sick.

Anarchus

Think San Jose Lawyer makes good points.

If that line of reasoning is correct, I'd guess the pink shirt routine on Valentine's Day also bodes poorly for Libby's chances.

To wit, only jurors who are into the media circus and independently minded like sheep would all put on snazzy pink shirts for the big show on Valentine's day. Ugh.

At least, we should know when a verdict's about to come out since the lucky 11 should put on their Sunday finest for the big day.

gogeo

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"...

Okay, I'll bite...I've read there was no dispute about what was actually said by Libby to Cooper, but a dispute about interpretation. How, exactly, does anything Libby said to the GJ about this relate? Or...is there dispute about what was said?

Sara (Squiggler)

MarkO, I have to wonder why you bother with JOM as it would appear that a good many of the posters here don't live up to your lofty standards of intelligence. But then I'm one you don't read because I'm too stupid to bother with, so this is just taking up space.

sylvia

I agree Sara. I am sure Clarice has many good qualities here, however, I am well aware of Clarice's opinion of me, and she doesn't need to keep telling me about it. She is welcome to it. As to the others, I think the trolls come out at the sign of any conflict to pour oil on the fire - I don't think half of them are real and we shouldn't pay much attention to it.

COld ham

EasrnestAnne:


What a model of public service he is!

Indeed, Cheney is an American to admired. Of course, in your Pee Wee Hermanish neighborhood, a true hero is one that throws out his millionairess widow for one with billions, and earns the admiration of his followers in direct proportion to his willingness to trash his country.

Pathetic.

WA Moore

I find Jeralyn's logic on the order of consideration of the counts compelling. Counts 4 and 5 must be resolved prior to Count 1. Counts 2 and 3 can be left until counts 4, 5, and 1 are resolved. I'm not a lawyer, but do have experience as a juror,

JM Hanes

TalkLeft:

We've been using the indictment as our guide to the elements being considered by the jury, but I'm unclear about precisely what the jurors themselves are considering.

We know that the jury was not going to see the indictment. Does the judge lay out the charges in his jury instructions? Does the jury actually have a paper copy of those instructions (and if so, would they be given the instructions as Judge Walton drew them up, or as they appear in the transcript?). Does it include an itemization of the charges which is easy to separate out from the boilerplate instructions?

The verdict form includes no information about the basis for the charges, so I'm wondering what sort of precis the jurors would have at their disposal for reference.

theo

Gogeo --

I think the government's contention is that -- in order to give himself legal and political cover as not having been a leaker about Plame -- Libby invented parts of his conversation with Cooper. In particular, the government alleges, Libby claimed to have told Cooper "I do not even know if Wilson even has a wife" and "All I know about this is what I have heard from other reporters" when in fact (according to the prosecution) Libby had never said these things to Cooper. According to Cooper, Libby in fact said the much less detailed "I heard that too" when asked about Wilson's wife working for the CIA.

And for this difference of recollection they want Libby to spend up to 10 years in jail......

sylvia

"The Cooper charges are he-said/he said. If that is hard to resolve, the rest is impossible."

True. But they are "he said/he said" within a context of information and pattern. There is a definite case for false statements here in a literal sense, ie, if the jury believes Cooper, the two statements don't match, however the jury has the wiggle room to decide if the level of difference rises to any great magnitude. That's where my 50% odds come in. Since I believe Count 5 is so strong, it might bleed over into Count 3.

maryrose

sylvia;
The Duke case continues to unravel daily. That is a fact. We are all on pins and needles regarding the jury's decision on Libby. Let's try patience and understanding as we go forth.

maryrose

What makes Count 5 so strong? Just asking...

Sara (Squiggler)

JMH: I only have juror experience, but I'm still thinking that the only sensible way to start is with the verdict form and a quick non-binding vote to get a feel where everyone is. If there is unanimity on one or more counts from the git go, why would they waste time discussing those counts at all?

sylvia

"What makes Count 5 so strong? Just asking..."

The text of Libby's additional words to the grand jury, which we have a firm transcript on, about the state of his own knowledge about Plame during that time period, which differs from the "he said/he said" nature of Count 3.

gogeo

WA Moore, I was on a jury for a guy charged with 5 rapes. We started with Count 1, which I think was one of the weaker cases. We had a lot of dissent, so quickly polled on the other 4. We found Count 5 to be very compelling and the witness very credible. This reflected badly upon the credibility of the defendant, who we decided based upon that count was not credible. He was convicted on all 5 counts, but may not have been without that victim in Count 5.

I suspect that many juries start with the charges they find the most agreement on, then go to the charges with the most dissent. If that's the case here, it's not good news for Libby, I think; I believe that would mean a finding of guilty on the Russert counts.

Another poster said they may have acquitted on all 5 and decided to be thorough to minimize any subsequent second guessing. That seems plausible.

I'm worried about the higher incidence of BDS in the DC area. BDS trumps everything.

PeterUK

Isn't it about time we sent out for a new deck of cards?

Sara (Squiggler)

It is up to those voting guilty to prove to those voting not guilty why their not guilty vote is based on unreasonable reasoning, not the other way around. Whether this jury is doing that is anybody's guess. Of course, if the vote is say 10-2 to convict, it is easier to convince 2 people to see their error and change their vote than it would be for 2 people to convince 10 people to vote guilty simply because if there are two reasonable explanations, one pointing to guilt, one to not guilty, the decision must go in the defendant's favor.

Jane

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

For me that was the best laugh of the day. Thanks Charlie!

JM Hanes

Sara:

That's what I was thinking till I saw the actual verdict form. For example:

Count Three:

As to the offense of making false statements to the Federal Burea of Investigation, we the jury find I. Lewis Libby:

Not Guilty_____

Guilty_______

Clearly they would need something more than that just to remember which charge is which.

gogeo

TM, I read your additional comments:

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...

I guess I would never make it on a DC jury...my thought process would follow:

1) Is the testimony from Russert credible? Given the circumstances of the phone calls to the Buffalo reporter, and the discrepancy between his earlier and later testimony regarding the Libby conversation, I would decide that Russert's memory is not reliable. (not that he lied)

2) I would conclude that memory was a poor tool to convict a man.

3) I wouldn't even get to the question of Libby's credibility.

WA Moore

gogeo: "BDS trumps everything."

Amen! But this may not bet a normal DC jury. It is different in educational level, gender mix, and racial mix. Let's hope that BDS does not rule.

Rock

Years ago I was a juror in a drunk driving case. The defendant was clearly guilty in my opinion because when given the choice between a blood test, urine test or breath test, he chose and failed the blood test.

He hired an “expert witness” who argued that one can drink a bunch of alcohol at 11:00pm and one’s blood alcohol level wouldn’t be “significantly elevated” until a few hours later. So, the argument was, the defendant might have been drunk (over the legal limit) when the blood draw was done at 1:00am but he wasn’t drunk when he was actually driving his vehicle.

9 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit, not so much because they really bought the expert witness’ argument, though some might have been soft-headed enough to do so, but because they didn’t like the law that said you could be convicted of drunk driving even if you didn’t have a motor vehicle accident. One of the jurors was a former bartender and reflected that she looked upon her time as a bartender as “serving others.”

My question is this. Is this jury as stacked for the prosecution as my jury was stacked for the defendant?

TalkLeft

JM Haynes asks me above:

"Does the judge lay out the charges in his jury instructions? Does the jury actually have a paper copy of those instructions (and if so, would they be given the instructions as Judge Walton drew them up, or as they appear in the transcript?). Does it include an itemization of the charges which is easy to separate out from the boilerplate instructions?"

The jury doesn't have the Indictment. They have the jury instructions and the verdict. I'm not sure whether they have the transcript or the written ones as the Court intended to give them. I would assume the written ones because the transcript wouldn't have been finished when they went out to deliberate and they needed to have those right away.

Yes, the instructions are infinitely detailed as to the charges and elements they must find as to each one -- they detail both the exact statements the Government alleges are false and the required mental state Libby had to have for each count -- and the other stuff, like the materiality definition for false statements and for the perjury, the intent to deceive the grand jury.

That's the document we were all discussing in Tom's earlier thread about the 127 page document. I got it from the Court staff this morning and have not uploaded it in its entirety because the court staff said the transcript, not the document, represents the official version of the instructions and the Judge may have changed a few words. But, I did e-mail them to Tom.

I also uploaded the memory instruction and the specific statements Libby is supposed to have made to the FBI on Count 3, which was the subject of their question, on TalkLeft.

I really do appreciate the courtesy you commenters have shown me. I blog about the case all day and TalkLeft readers rarely comment. So I come here frequently to get your take.

Charlie (Colorado)

While we're at it, I'd like a BLT on wheat toast.

Enlightened

I find it somewhat troubling that the jury has not asked to hear replays of Libby's GJ testimony - If I were one of these jurors, I don't know how I could convict the man without re-visitng his testimony vs Cooper's, if we want to refer to this particular note.

They have asked for many peripheral items that seem rather incongruous to me. Almost as if they made up their minds in advance that he is guilty, no need to compare and contrast -

Sue

TalkLeft readers rarely comment

We're kind of gabby over here at JOM. ::grin::

Charlie (Colorado)

It snowed again today, Jeralyn.

Sara (Squiggler)

JMH: I understand what you are saying, but after sitting thru the testimony and taking notes, there is nothing to say a person might not have a firm idea of whether they thought Libby's statements rise to the level of being characterized as false or misleading. Anyway, for me it would be the place to start. I expect no charge was a slam dunk and that arguments on both sides would be advanced. The bottom line (yuck I dislike that phrase) is whether the differences in opinion are reasonable. If they are, then Libby gets acquitted.

I don't have such a low opinion of jurors as some around here do (not you). I don't think they are looking to their 15 minutes of fame, nor do I think that once inside deliberations they will refuse to deliberate honestly. They will bring their own life experience into the jury room, which isn't a bad thing. However, they will have to stand up to others who also have life experiences that bring a different perspective. Then there will be those who will insist that everyone put aside their biases, pro or con, and do their duty with due diligence and honesty according to the jury instructions, the evidence, and the Constitution.

My hope is that someone on that jury speaks up and says, "we have a man's life in our hands, so we have to get this right." That is a heavy responsibility and one that I think the majority of mature Americans take seriously when they are called to serve.

Jane

9 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit, not so much because they really bought the expert witness’ argument, though some might have been soft-headed enough to do so, but because they didn’t like the law that said you could be convicted of drunk driving even if you didn’t have a motor vehicle accident.

Rock,

Recently I was speaking to the prosecutor in our local district Court and he said they try and plead every single case now because juries will not convict drunk drivers because the penalties are far too great - and they are around here.

I fear a DC jury has the same pre-disposition but the only thing I rely on for that is the fact that 90% of DC residents are democrats, so who knows?

Pofarmer

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,

As has been pointed out. The Cooper conversation was AFTER Russert. And AFTER the Novak column was out! Get it straight.

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. ".

Well, there you go. Forget the indictment, look at the testimony. The indictment is not the evidence. You are going guilty till proven innocent, that isn't the way it works.

sylvia

"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. "

Tom, I don't think you are considering Libby's testimony in Count 5. It's not he said/he said - it's just "Libby said". In Russerts case, Russert said the conversation didn't even exist - even if the jury believes Russert, then Libby's words about his reaction to Rusert words don't come into play because supposedly the conversation never happened. It's like me getting charged for perjury for the exact words I used in the conversation I had with my imaginary playmate. No Russert, one Cooper. I'll take bets on it.

PeterUK

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

She needs to buy some pixel offsets.

sylvia

"As has been pointed out. The Cooper conversation was AFTER Russert. And AFTER the Novak column was out! Get it straight."

Exactly. So you don't think that after all that buzz flying around about Plame, Libby didn't take a moment to refresh his memory on her and figure out where he heard about her and what he knew about her? You don't think he took time to refresh his memory about any talks he had with the VP about her?

PMII

If you are being judged by your true peers - average Joe by average Joe, I think you have an excellent change of getting off...

But this is a high level gov't type being judged by average Joe. This could have a big impact. If Libby was being judged by true peers, it would have been over on the first day - NG.

Sara (Squiggler)

I find it somewhat troubling that the jury has not asked to hear replays of Libby's GJ testimony

Are we sure they don't have the GJ testimony with them in the jury room?

I don't know how they do it in Federal court, but my experience in California Superior Court was that we got every bit of admitted evidence in the room with us. The only thing we had to ask for was more office supplies. The court provided us with flip charts and steno notebooks as we filled up the ones we started with. We also didn't get any fancy lunches, but were brought the same horrible box lunches they supplied to prisoners from the county jail awaiting their court appearances in the holding cells. White bread, a slice of baloney, a slice of processed cheese, dry, no mayo or mustard, and one carton of milk. We could buy soft drinks from a machine and there was a hot cold bottled water dispenser and we could bring our own sodas, tea or instant coffee and our own lunches if we wanted.

sylvia

As to Russert, I think there is enough reasonable doubt about Russert's claim about whether the conversation on Plame actually took place. I would think the jury would think there is reason to believe it did take place. Since Russert cannot be judged credible on this, any details included in the Russert charge are not relevant or applicable.

Other Tom

Eisenhower said, "Every war will surprise you." A lawyer's corollary might be, "Every jury will surprise you." Assuming one or more jurors agrees to talk after the verdict (very likely), the one certainty is that we will all be utterly flabbergasted by something about their deliberations. Just wait until you hear their description of how they went about their task, and what they considered important, and what they assumed, and so on. If they come in the way you want, you will say, "ah, the blessed jury system!" If they come in the other way, you will say, "Jesus, this is the way we decide whether a guy goes to jail?"

For all of that, I still believe in it, and will continue to believe in it regardless of what this jury does about Libby. I think every sensible person knows that these individual jurors, given who they are and the place and time they live in, came in with large emotional prejudice against anyone connected with the Bush administration. I think those same sensible persons would also acknowledge, based on what little we can know to this point, that they are taking their jobs extremely seriously, and are trying the best they can to reach a just result. For the winning side, they will be the embodiment of the wisdom of the common folk. For the losers, they will be mad as March hares.

This Fascist Hyena is in the middle somewhere.

Semanticleo

It's all good, Sylvia.

Ignore comments about 'BDS'. Projection is contagious here.

JM Hanes

TalkLeft:

Thanks so much for the info. I know I'm not alone in appreciating your on site observations from the trial. Together with FDL's deatailed not-a-transcripts, we've been able to address the particulars in an entirely unprecedented way. You are breaking new ground, to the considerable advantage of us all. Kudos!

Sue

What if they took their straw poll on day one, found they weren't unanimous, decided to start from the beginning and work through the evidence (the original notes requesting supplies and pictures suggest this) and have just started going through the counts again, trying to see if they can reach a unanimous verdict?

Pofarmer

Exactly. So you don't think that after all that buzz flying around about Plame, Libby didn't take a moment to refresh his memory on her and figure out where he heard about her and what he knew about her? You don't think he took time to refresh his memory about any talks he had with the VP about her?

No, it was the next day. He'd had no chance to verify anything. Therefore, the safest thing to say would probably be, "That's what we're hearing from reporters." or something to that effect. That way you don't look like a doofus and totally out of the loop, but you don't confirm something you don't know through official channells either.(Even if I'm not sure how that would work).

gogeo

Ignore comments about 'BDS'. Projection is contagious here...

It appears projection is contagious here...my BDS comment was aimed at jurors, not posters.

Sue

Can someone tell me whether or not, when the judge and lawyers questioned the foreman and jurors on Monday, they would have gotten any indication what was going on? An example, which may not even be feasible, would the foreman have said we have decided on 3 counts and are working on the last 2? Any tip at all?

Sue

I keep thinking back to Wells being in a good mood and Fitz upset as described by EW. I also wonder why Wells didn't immediately call for a mistrial, whether he thought he would get it or not.

PeterUK

Why are Sylvia's posts in green?

Rick Ballard

Mold

centralcal

Talkleft: I want to join in the sentiments expressed here about the info you provide on your site and have shared here (and, how much I appreciate that your analysis is fair and balanced.

Others: My experience in 2 of the juries I served on, was that after we selected a foreperson, one of the first things he did was take a secret ballot of all the jurors - which gave us a good idea of where we stood coming in and how far we had to go in reaching unanimity.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well, if Mom were still alive, she'd pull out the flip chart and draw two columns -- PRO and CON and start filling them in count by count.

What I think will be confusing and hold things up is the instruction that they can't have different reasons for their vote pro or con. If there are five reasons he might be guilty on a particular count all 12 have to be unanimous on one of them or it is not guilty. As I understand it, you can't have one thinking Libby is guilty because of A, another B, and a third on C.

centralcal

Sue:

"I keep thinking back to Wells being in a good mood and Fitz upset as described by EW."

The Orient blogger described Wells as being down; Fitz and associates as nervous and fidgety. (I'm paraphrasing).

My point is people see different things, just like they hear different things, based on their own perceptions.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Are we sure they don't have the GJ testimony with them in the jury room?'

That might be why they're taking so long. They're taking each count and combing the transcripts to see how each count is supported (or not).

sylvia

"No, it was the next day"

Even if you discount any official conversations such as Fleischer, Libby by his own testimony spoke about Plame in some form with Miller on 7/8, Novak on 7/9, supposedly Russert on 7/10. You don't think he looked up any notes on Plame after all that by the 12th.

Sue

After the juror was dismissed? I thought I was reading both places, I must have missed it at the Orient.

PMII

Sue:

"I keep thinking back to Wells being in a good mood and Fitz upset as described by EW."

The Orient blogger described Wells as being down; Fitz and associates as nervous and fidgety. (I'm paraphrasing).

My point is people see different things, just like they hear different things, based on their own perceptions.

Posted by: centralcal | February 28, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Wells could also be timing - when they looked over. Fitz - nervous & fidgety - that's the obly way I've seen him

sylvia

Are my posts really in green? Not on my screen. ALthough Tom is making me type the letters before I post, so maybe that's why.

Sue

Fleischer wasn't an official conversation and impeached himself with Pincus. There is not testimony Libby spoke to Novak on the 9th about Plame, and Miller is questionable. At least as to her own memory. Her notes are another matter and may be the sticking point. And there is nothing in evidence he looked up anything on the 12th. The jury is not supposed to speculate.

TalkLeft

"'Are we sure they don't have the GJ testimony with them in the jury room?'"

They do have Libby's grand jury transcripts and paper copies of all exhibits.

I'm pretty sure the Judge told them in court that if they wanted to listen to tapes, they had to be brought into the courtroom to hear them played.

sylvia

Fleischer wasn't an official conversation and impeached himself with Pincus.

By official, I meant a government official. I would not say that Fleischer reached the level of impeaching himself.

There is not testimony Libby spoke to Novak on the 9th about Plame,

Was there not testimony from Novak about him asking Libby about Plame the day before Russert?

And there is nothing in evidence he looked up anything on the 12th. The jury is not supposed to speculate.

They can make inferences about what is reasonable to know and what is not reasonable to know. That's how perjury is decided, as so far you can't read someone's mind.

Sue

The judge told them that the transcript was not the official version and if their memory of the taped version differed they should take the video version as the official version. I'm not sure if he said they could bring it in, but I would think that they could see, or hear, any of the evidence presented during the trial.

MayBee

"If there was any lying, that means guilty, right?

Eeesh. I finally caught up with everything. The above (who was this from?) is what I'm afraid the jury is thinking.
Although it could be that there are some that think this, and they are trying to explain to that one person by involving the judge. An appeal to authority, if you will.

Sue

By official, I meant a government official. I would not say that Fleischer reached the level of impeaching himself.

I would. More than once. Not only with saying he didn't tell Pincus but by using the wording in the INR not what he said Libby told him.

Was there not testimony from Novak about him asking Libby about Plame the day before Russert?

You are right, sort of. Libby's attorney asked Novak if he asked Libby about Wilson/Plame and Novak responded he might have though if he did Libby didn't respond.

They can make inferences about what is reasonable to know and what is not reasonable to know. That's how perjury is decided, as so far you can't read someone's mind.

They can make inferences with regards to the evidence. Otherwise, they could speculate whether Plame is covert or not.

Sara (Squiggler)

We are missing one very important dynamic in trying to evaluate testimony. We did not see the testimony live and we can not evaluate the demeanor of the person on the stand. How cold words read on paper is often far different than the way they sound live.

BarbaraS

As I said on the other thread I have a probem with Ari Fleischer's immunity. Why did Fitzgerald give him immunity. It has been said Fitzgerald did not know how Ari would testify. This makes no sense. Ari could have sunk Fitzgerald's case. I think Ari leaked the INR and Fitzgerald used this to force Ari to testify his way. After all Fitzgerald had no problem lying to the court in the Judith miller matter. He had no problem lying to Judge Hogan's court about Russert's affidavit. He probably forced Russert to change is testimony also. And BTW Russert's interview with the FBI did not jive with his "grand jury" testimony. How come he is not on trial for lying to one or the other?

Pofarmer

You don't think he looked up any notes on Plame after all that by the 12th.

When was Schmall's note?

This just fits into the "everybody knew" theory.

Sue

Sylvia,

Tom isn't making you type anything in to post. It is typepad. I have to everytime I post. Sometimes 2x, up to 3x, depending on how bad my eyesight is at that particular moment.

Enlightened

Sara - That is why I asked about Libby's GJ tape as opposed to transcripts of it - Nuances get missed in the translation.

sylvia

Well Sue, if Libby didn't remember who Plame was and how he found out about her by the 12th, then he should be found not guilty but deserved losing his job anyway for his sloppy work and inattention to detail.

Not a lawyer (Though I play one on TV)

You don't think he looked up any notes on Plame after all that by the 12th.

No I don't, nor should any intelligent being. There wasn't any "buzz" around Plame until it got Corn fed (the 16th), and even then it was only a buzz on leftwing blogs for the first several days.

sylvia

Okay, thanks Sue, glad I'm not the only one. Those fuzzy letters are ruining my eyesight. But on the bright side, they're a good visual and typing excxercise. Keep you sharp.

MayBee

BarbaraS: Why did Fitzgerald give him immunity. It has been said Fitzgerald did not know how Ari would testify.

My own personal theory is that Adam Levine had given Fitzgerald some idea about how Ari would testify.
Levine was Ari's assistant, and supposedly one of the sources for the 1x2x6 (officals calling reporters about Wilson for revenge) story. Levine testified in this investigation many, many times.

Pofarmer

then he should be found not guilty but deserved losing his job anyway for his sloppy work and inattention to detail.

You didn't look at his schedule, did you?

They had actual, like pressing, ya know, problems to deal with. This was all peripheral, at the best.

Sue

sloppy work and inattention to detail.

You are working on the premise that Plame was important, at that particular time. She wasn't. Not until Corn's article came out did anyone even notice Novak's article.

Enlightened

Sylvia - Many people do sloppy work and are inattentive on the job - not only do they not all lose their jobs, they usually have valid reasons for being so.

If it were a documented pattern in his job performance then yes, he should lose his job.

The problem is, his job habits are not a crime, and a Special Prosecutor damn well better know the difference between sloppy job performance and criminal activity.

Sue

Levine was Ari's assistant

Didn't Libby testify in front of the gj that he tasked Levine to talk to Matthews? I wonder why Fitzgerald didn't call Levine?

pldew

Sylvia,
what Libby knew on the 12th doesn't matter. He's charged with what he remembered in October, when he interviewed with the FBI, and subsequently at his Grand Jury testimony.

sylvia

"They had actual, like pressing, ya know, problems to deal with"

Yeah like calling Russert on the 11th and Miller on the 12th and Cooper on the 12th. Why? To talk about the "actual pressing problem" of Wilson and how the VP didn't send him.

And according to Libby's own testimony about Rusert, Russert said "all the reporters are asking about it." Sounds like a buzz to me.

Syl

Brain fart question time:

Do the jurors have only their notes to rely on for the witness testimony?

Since I don't think that could be right, can they ask for transcripts of specific witness testimony? Or is that included in 'exhibits'?

Jane

Sometimes 2x, up to 3x, depending on how bad my eyesight is at that particular moment.

Me too, should I be suing for discrimination?
Actually today I thought it was a public service. Clearly my eyes have gotten worse and I should go have them checked. So thanks Typepad!

steve

Ari's story seemed very implausible to me. Aside from using the INR language and not Libby's in discussing Wilson's wife, there's the whole Plamay thing, which pretty much rules out having first heard the name orally before seeing it in writing. I doubt that Ari was consciously lying in court, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tipped Fitz off about what he would say before he got immunity.

Dwilkers

Wow still no verdict. I'm very surprised.

The hung jury watch starts tomorrow morning then I guess.

sylvia

"what Libby knew on the 12th doesn't matter. He's charged with what he remembered in October, when he interviewed with the FBI, and subsequently at his Grand Jury testimony. "

True. He is charged with saying at his GJ testimony that he didn't even know Wilson had a wife when he spoke to Cooper.

eljuez

i have tried and presided over many jury trials. any person who is trying to discern what the jury wants is purely wishful thinking. this note does not mean a darn thing. jury ask dumb or intelligent questions all the time and the judge and attorney have no idea what is going on short of them asking can they hang hime themselves

steve

I do not envy the jury. Only having the convoluted instructions and the confusing trial record, they really do have a difficult task merely in parsing what the points of disagreement are between the prosecution and defense.

sylvia

"there's the whole Plamay thing"

Maybe Fleischer just likes the word "Plamay". He could be closet.

Sue

I wonder if Wells and Jeffress did a good enough job distancing Libby from Armitage? I keep thinking about the tape and what Armitage was saying. If the jury doesn't realize that Armitage, a Bush administration official, wasn't part of the Libby clique, will they associate Libby with Armitage's "how about that []"?

Other Tom

Syl, I think they have only their notes, and can ask for portions of transcripts to be read back.

steve

My guess is that the defense's eagerness to put on the Armitage tape, and the prosecution's desire to play it down, signals to the jurors that "how about that" points the finger away from Libby. But if they think that Libby and Armitage were in cahoots, they might also think that Libby was getting screwed since Armitage was getting of scot-free

Sara (Squiggler)

True. He is charged with saying at his GJ testimony that he didn't even know Wilson had a wife when he spoke to Cooper.

Is this a valid statement? Didn't Libby say he told Cooper he didn't even know Wilson had a wife? That is a bit different than telling the GJ that he didn't know anything about a wife. Libby was under no obligation to tell Cooper anything truthful, was he?

MarkO

El Juez,

Che. Tenes razon.

Jane

If the jury doesn't realize that Armitage, a Bush administration official, wasn't part of the Libby clique, will they associate Libby with Armitage's "how about that []"?

Oh the non-plamiac Bushhitler crowd definately sees no difference from Armitage and Libby. They sense there is a reason they should not call for Armitage's hanging - altho they couldn't articulate it if their lives depended on it - but they have no clue about a rift.

Syl

Sylvia

He is charged with saying at his GJ testimony that he didn't even know Wilson had a wife when he spoke to Cooper.

When I read that testimony, it was Libby saying what he said to Cooper. Not what he said to the GJ about himself.

IOW, he was lying to cooper, not the GJ.

That was my interpretation and I think it's a reasonable one.

Pofarmer

He is charged with saying at his GJ testimony that he didn't even know Wilson had a wife when he spoke to Cooper.

Which, inconveniently for Fitz, is pretty much exactly what Coopers notes say.

Pofarmer

I'm beginning to think Sylvia is Fitz in drag.

sylvia

Sara, this is the quote:

Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

Libby said he didn't know that Wilson had a wife.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame