Powered by TypePad

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

February 28, 2007

Comments

sylvia

Wait, I thought I was Murphy? Now I'm Fitz?

MayBee

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?

You know, I think you are right about that. Although I don't wonder why Fitzgerald didn't call Levine.

Pofarmer

any person who is trying to discern what the jury wants is purely wishful thinking

Yes, we know that, but it certainly wastes a lot time!

sylvia

Wait those "f"'s and "r"'s on the typing game just aren't fair. The "f" kind of looks like a "t". The "r" looks like an "i".

MayBee

Jane: Oh the non-plamiac Bushhitler crowd definately sees no difference from Armitage and Libby.

Oh, Jane. The Plamiac Bushitler crowd thinks Libby put Armitage up to telling Woodward about Wilson AND ALSO put Woodward up to asking Armitage about Wilson.
Apparently, Libby spoke with Armitage in June (6th, maybe), and being high-level government officials there is practically nothing else they could have discussed.

Syl

OT

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

Thanks.

I can certainly envision certain impeachable stuff flying unimpeded over all 12 jurors heads. In which case they wouldn't even realize they were missing anything.

I suppose the CW is that it's highly improbable that all 12 jurors would blink simultaneously.

PeterUK

Sylvia,
Libby doesn't need the job,he is a highly successful lawyer,compared to what he can earn,this was tantamount to pro bono.
Of course if the dead beat political backstabbers keep this up,you'll end up like Europe,run by third rate functionaries,if so the American imperium will be shorter than you think.

Joseph Somsel

Clarice has been invaluable in her contributions and is certainly an expert on this stuff.

However, many experts yield on occasion to the tempation of pride. (I know I do within my sphere of expertise.) That can make one a bit short with those with less expertise.

While Clarice hasn't snarked me, if she did I'd try to let it roll off my back and keep on enjoying her contributions.

As to the jury, any well-chosen panel of responsible adults will certainly feel the eyes of the nation and of Mr. Libby and his family upon them. This is a complex and sometimes baffling case especially with so much background deliberately withheld from them.

They will take their time and deliver the best verdict they can to us and to Mr. Libby given the instructions and admitted evidence.

I would disagree with any guilty verdict but I have had the advantage of far more information and insight than they.

May God help them to have the wisdom to deliver justice. We count on juries of our peers, sometimes in spite of the "justice system."

Other Tom

How'd you like to send a man to federal prison for saying he didn't know Joe Wilson had a wife, when it fact he probably did?

Other Tom

"in fact."

saki

I really apprediate the discussion that goes on at this site. I do believe that you all know way too much about this case in your musings about the jury.
Were I on this jury as just a non-involved citizen, my first question would have been "Why are we here, again"?
After some discussion about this, a time llne would have to be constructed, incorporating: 1st the dates of the interactions between Libby and the witnesses, and 2nd the dates that Libby testified about these conversations.
Once we were familiar with this info, we could procede to the actual remembrances of the testimony and associate the testimony with the witness who so testified. (pictures?)
After this was constructed, we could look at the actual charges and how they stand up to what we have pieced together.
I imagine this could take quite a bit of time before the question of guilt or no guilt even became relevant.
Remember you have a few months,(years) on the knowledge of this jury.

sylvia

"However, many experts yield on occasion to the tempation of pride. (I know I do within my sphere of expertise.) That can make one a bit short with those with less expertise."

Well said. I am somewhat anti-expert. It's the rebel in me.

sylvia

"How'd you like to send a man to federal prison for saying he didn't know Joe Wilson had a wife, when it fact he probably did?"

I'd give him community service if it were up to me. But if he did know, it does show his intent to mislead and obscure.

JM Hanes

Sara:

"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.'"

I do think that "reasonable doubt" is a more elastic concept in practice than our purists would apparently like to believe it is in theory. I suspect that only a very brave few would insist that their own standards for what constitutes a reasonable doubt -- or conversely, a reasonable certainty -- would be entirely unaffected by the potential outcome in a death penalty case.

In an ideal world, the law and the charges leveled would be both clear and logical, the evidence presented would be both logical and complete, and the jury could come to perfectly logical conclusions -- although logic suggests they would, in fact, be redundant. In the real world of course, they are expected to pass judgment based on imperfect evidence, contested by imperfect lawyers, presided over by imperfect judges, according to statutes which are not always perfectly clear (as Fitzgerald himself asserted in his description of the espionage law).

Jurors are vetted for potential bias in voir dire, not handed multiple choice quizzes designed to test their logical skills. In the jury instructions I once received, the Judge said some thing like, "I'll tell you what you need to know about the law, you are here to use your common sense." The legal professions may insist that jury nullification is a cardinal sin, but as a citizen, I think the very notion of fair play relies on a sense that potential penalties are reasonably proportionate to the crimes that are charged.

hit and run

Jeralyn:
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.


Hmmmmm. I'm getting a picture here. You. Me. Maybe we can head back on over to your place? A nice quiet corner over on TalkLeft where we can be alone. You TalkLeft, I'll talkright and maybe we can meet in the middle? ::wink, wink::

/comedy

well unless you...

No really. kidding.

But if you change your....

OK stopping now.

Sara (Squiggler)

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.

Sylvia: I read this a bit differently, which is no guarantee my interpretation is the right one. Libby is saying he didn't know anything about "this stuff" the wifey, etc. until it came to attention in June. Then he goes on to say that he went on to say this to Cooper. I see it as two different statements. One about his own state of knowledge in June and one about what he led Cooper to believe was his state of knowledge.

I don't see the lie as according to testimony, Libby first heard about Wilson's wife working at CIA after Grossman was tasked in late May to get him info on Wilson's trip and didn't bring forth an answer until June 11th or 12th.

PeterUK

I would posit,that anybody,absolutely anybody,could be targeted over a trivial detail of their lives,one even on an unconscious level and brought to where Libby is now.The technique is common to many totalitarian inquisitors,all that is needed is to spot the error,work on it and magnify the offence,creating the law post facto if necessary.Stalin would be proud.

PeterUK

"I'd give him community service if it were up to me. But if he did know, it does show his intent to mislead and obscure."

Libby was doing "Community Service" until he got ensnared.

sylvia

"I see it as two different statements."

I agree, that's his best reasonable doubt hope.

Jane

Oh, Jane. The Plamiac Bushitler crowd thinks Libby put Armitage up to telling Woodward about Wilson AND ALSO put Woodward up to asking Armitage about Wilson.

Maybee,

(Good Morning - I think it must be morning there)

You are right. I stand corrected.

Saki,

Interesting take. I hope you are right!

Charlie (Colorado)

That can make one a bit short with those with less expertise.

Hmph. I'll have you know I'm 6'3".

Pofarmer

I'd give him community service if it were up to me. But if he did know, it does show his intent to mislead and obscure.

What it shows, is he intended not to confirm anything to Cooper, even though he knew other reporters were talking about it, and it wasn't vetted to go through proper channels yet.

Why is this so hard?

MayBee

Good morning, Jane :-)

MTT

PeterUK,

What you said.

That the Special Prosecutor (even the honorific is scary) may have sucessfully engineered a conviction of a high-level government official (and public servant) is terrible and shameful.

That there are those who for purely partisan (not even rising to the level of ideologic) reasons are thrilled to see this happen is equally disturbing.

Yet as the above exchanges between Sara (Squiggler) and sylvia show, even for the Plamaniacs who have all the advantage of months or years of experience in this case there is no agreement as to whether or not Libby lied, or to whom (Cooper or the GJ)

The jurors may find themselves certain that lies were, however, told.

And that may be enough for them to convict.

The fact that Fleischer, Armitage, Russert, Pincus, Woodward, et al. either disagree or contradict each other is besides the point.

It appears that Libby told a lie re: the Cooper count and if they convict Libby on that charge, he is toast.

Just sayin'.

kate

There's a post at American Spectator Blog that I didn't know how to link that captures my feelings exactly.

This jury is getting wrapped around the axle with their post it notes and pictures and getting hung up on the easiest charge.

I expect a guilty verdict on at least 4 charges. However, I expect the Libby team to do well on appeal and a pardon from Bush at some time. I agree with TM, Libby won't do a day in prison.

MayBee

Yes kate. I have been very optimistic, but if the jury is even asking anything other than "how many check marks can we put in the not guilty' box?", I fear for Libby. They shouldn't be caught up in the weeds, because they shouldn't be in the weeds at all.

JM Hanes

Jane:

"Oh the non-plamiac Bushhitler crowd definately sees no difference from Armitage and Libby."

They used to of course, back when Powell was the putative voice of sanity in an Admin gone wild, but Armitage made that meme a trifle inconvenient.

PeterUK

I don't know what the rules are in the States,but was either the GJ or the SP cleared to receive classified information? Perhaps Libby wasn't sure,he was after all new to the job.

Other Tom

I'm with Saki. Just think of how long we kooks have been dissecting this thing--everything said on Hardball, written in the New York Times, WaPo etc., and all over the web, for more than three years now. You can't make a single mistake about, say, when Woodward first contacted somebody-or-other, without a dozen Plame freaks (read: JOM'ers) jumping down your throat and pointing out what you got wrong. These eleven people had this stuff fly by them just once--once!--and all they've got is the exhibits and, essentially, their memories of who said what during the trial. In all likelihood they are seeing this whole thing very, very differently from the way we are. And remember that postal worker lady who really dug Ted Wells...

MarkO

Saki,

Interesting thoughts. I respectfully take issue with this, however:

Were I on this jury as just a non-involved citizen, my first question would have been "Why are we here, again"?


In my experience, the burden of proof favors the Government because many people have an underlying sense that “something happened.” That was the chant of the “Fascist Hyenas” that railroaded the Duke players. The reality is that there is an unspoken predilection for the prosecution.

If, in fact, the jury starts as you say, the defense has made a substantial impact.

I could not agree more that we of the OCD are at least 20,000 fathoms deep in this thing. We engage in exegesis of the jurors’ handwriting. I believe the jury really goes off the “feel” of the case and checks its perceptions against the evidence, if necessary.

What’s the over/under?

kate

MayBee-I tried to be optimistic, but I wasn't thrilled with the judge. The question today was not a good sign. I'm guessing they're searching for Libby lies and putting them on their little post its.

I expect a verdict tomorrow since they may not get sufficient attention on Friday.

MaidMarion

"...there's the whole Plamay thing..."

Maybe David "I can speak French" Gregory jokingly suggested this pronunciation to Ari...

Syl

I don't think I've weighed in on the Bush pardon. But, I don't think Bush will pardon Libby.

Bush has a kind of naive faith in people and a strong belief in the system*. If Libby is convicted I'm sure Bush will simply say, well, the jury decided in good faith and who am I to overrule them?

*which is why the Left is so insane calling bush hitler and accusing him of ruining our democracy. Even the 'unitary executive' notion that makes the Left wet their pants concerns national security only and Bush has always shown his respect for SCOTUS.

Another Bob

Other Tom | February 28, 2007 at 05:40 PM

Agree completely (because it's a point I've tried to make here without apparent notice ;-)> ).

Sara (Squiggler)

MIT: I think there are several liars in this case, not the least being Fitz himself, the FBI, and most especially the one I christen the skunk, Fleischer. And I think they lied with intent.

I don't know how the jury gets around the fact that the document is in evidence that specifically states that the entire investigation was about who was the first leaker. Woodward's testimony with the Armitage tape are devastating to Fitz on that score.

Fitz grilling Libby for hours over him being the leaker just adds to that. And, we do have court watchers who heard the GJ tapes of Libby and reported he came off as credible and trying to be as helpful as he could be and not nearly as bafflegabbish as the written transcript makes it sound.

I have nothing but contempt for Fleischer.

OnTheThirdRail

This may be somewhat off topic but in all my research I think I can say:

1) Plame was technically covert (i.e. had a NOC) though the disclosure did not fall under the IIPA

2) She had possibly the most flimsy cover imaginable. For her to drive into Langley every morning, for her to be listed in Who's Who under Joe Wilson's entry as his wife.. ("Valarie Elise Plame" not even just "Valerie Wilson") he was a "high-ranking gov't official - albeit from a previous administration. I could go on.

3) For all intents and purposes the CIA didn't treat her as covert!

It just shows incompetence to keep her covert status but not take any serious measures to protect it.

Sue

They are supposed to remember what was said. This jury got to take notes though.

How ironic. From Ms. Merritt at her site. A trial about memory, where the jury is supposed to remember testimony and if they don't remember they have their notes. From a week ago. Libby is on trial for not remembering exactly what happened months earlier with no notes.

Syl

I agree with MTT on the Cooper count and with MayBee that they shouldn't even be in the weeds.

I mentioned in the other thread why I think what Libby said to Cooper is the crux of the matter to the jury. It answers the question 'Was Libby covering up a leak'.

That question is nowhere in the verdict form, but it will be the elephant for the jury. And if the jury thinks Libby confirmed the wife to Cooper then all the rest falls into place and he will be found guilty on all 5 counts.

gogeo

Yet as the above exchanges between Sara (Squiggler) and sylvia show, even for the Plamaniacs who have all the advantage of months or years of experience in this case there is no agreement as to whether or not Libby lied, or to whom (Cooper or the GJ)

I know what I've read, but I take what Sylvia says with a grain of salt. No confusion there.

Sara (Squiggler)

All we've proven today is that there is no wonder the jury is still deliberating.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Actually, Libby's JUDGE is the stinker in the mix.

He's the one who can't quite read a jury note, properly. While both sides said they "understood the meaning, clearly."

But it's the judge's courtroom. He could entertain himself and "write a note to the jurors," which produced their "no thanks." Because they unknotted their problam by just sleeping on it.

IF that jury room had the information it needed, we wouldn't see this jury so able to grasp onto the "truth" by discarding REASONABLE DOUBT.

Reasonable Doubt practically screams at you!

But to no avail.

Do harms come from affirmative action?

Yes. In this case this is true.

Who benefits from affirmative action?

NOBODY.

But the jury is still "out."

And, whatever ideals went into fighting the Civil War, and then, again, 100 years later, the American movement during the 1960's to finally roll back the redneck south ... has reached its final destination.

Most of the cars are empty. People across this country came to terms with the ill advised things affirmative action brought in its wake.

Does that mean we still have a problem? YES.

Will it be solved? Well, none of us will be hanging around for another hundred years.

But let's hope DC doesn't get to look like Detroit. DC has our monuments. And, so much of our history. What's michigan got? The carcass of a once profitable car industry? Went overseas. Kit and Kaboodle.

How will we ever regain the respect Americans used to have for skilled labor? I DO NOT KNOW.

saki

MarkO

You are right. My own bias came through in the way I stated that. What I really meant was the testimony, (at least as we got it filtered), and the talk about "leaks", as reported in the press, do not seem to go together. I also do not think there was only one juror confused about Plame's status. Why doesn't it matter?
Some confusion and discussion about this must surely have happened as they are trying to figure out why the charges are important. Matieriality(sp), if you will.

pldew

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

Right before the part you quote, as part of the same statement, Libby said:

I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that.

The question is about why Libby was attributing the wife rumors to reporters. He was very clearly characterizing a group of past comments. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the entirety of the answer in your above quote.

Pofarmer

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the entirety of the answer in your above quote.

It's the part Fitz cherry picked for his indictment.

Rick Ballard

"Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the entirety of the answer in your above quote."

That's impossible. Somebody would have to be an attention seeking idiot of a troll to do something so obvious.

Check again.

Syl

Carol

Enough already with the racist crap.

MayBee

If I had my way, Bush would pardon Libby and sign an executive order that any person in any administration that is convicted by a Special Prosecutor will be pardoned.
The opposing political party can then choose at their leisure whether to waste the taxpayer's money.

MayBee

I must call carol out on her anti-michigan bigotry.

Pofarmer

Syl

It isn't necessarily racist.

MarkO

I just noticed that if one disagrees with a certain poster one must be either crazy or a racist. I must be one crazy racist.

pldew

Rick,

The Russert-like impossibility is even to be heard at around minute 234 of the (second) 240 tape of the testimony.

Rick Ballard

I'll be darned.

kate

If Libby is convicted, I wonder what kind of sentence Fitz will seek. Will he show mercy or will he go for the maximum allowed under the sentencing guidelines.

Fitz has only one more chance to surprise.

Syl

markO

It's the affirmative action comments along with the Civil War comments along with the characterization of the judge.

This is not the first time.

Ralph L.

I find it hard to believe the jury could convict on the alleged "I forgot" lie. So what if he lied about that, is he telling the truth about what he said and did? That would literally be a thought crime.

One jury I was on looked at a drug buy by an undercover cop, who was in a previous trial. The judge instructed when we took our oaths that the cop's previous appearance must not affect this case. In deliberations, one juror said she'd seen the previous trial and thought the cop was arrogant and untrustworthy. I promptly laid into her, realizing before I'd finished that I sounded just like my father. I'm afraid voir dire can be a waste of time.

MayBee

I'm just sticking up for Michigan, man. A beautiful state full of wonderful people.

me

"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.."

After re-reading The Note, I think that what the jury was actually asking is whether what is in question is whether Libby did or did not, in fact, actually make such a statement to the FBI at all - or whether it is the intended truthfulness of the alleged statement (to the FBI, not Cooper) that they need to determine.

This seems silly, until you consider that the charge states that the statement was made on October 14 or November 26, 2003 - as if there is some doubt as to when (or presumably if) the statement to the FBI was actually made.

Obviously, both would need to be considered to reach a verdict on that charge (which perhaps they figured out on their own after a nice breakfast).

I don't suppose there's some bit on, say, page 75 (which they hadn't gotten to yet until today) which clarifies the criteria for determining this ?

JF

Wait! No one is mentioning the point that Libby's lawyers made about the sentence Cooper was typing on the bed and using typos. It was basically the very sentence that Libby told the GJ he said to Cooper.

Cooper's testimony that Libby said, "I heard that, too." is not in his notes.

So, even in a he said, he said situation isn't Libby the one who reported the conversation to the FIB/GJ correctly?

Syl

I'm wondering if it will ever hit the jurors as strange that Libby spoke to cooper with the prepared statement re the NIE etc to refute Wilson's charges but the only comment Cooper had about the whole thing was to bring up the wife?

I mean, what do journalists really care about? National security or gossip?

boris

Libby's GJ testimony wrt Cooper appears to be that Libby did not know about the CIA wife except from reporters and that's what he told Cooper.

Fitz probably did not charge him with lying about his state of official knowledge while talking to Cooper because the testimony is too ambiguous on that point. Fitz charges instead that Libby did not say to Cooper that he only knew from reporters.

Since Cooper's notes support Libby's version of the conversation the jury should aquit on all the Cooper counts, even if they suspect that his state of official knowledge while talking to Cooper included the CIA wife.

IMO the jury's note wanted to make sure they could not find Libby guilty of lying to the GJ about his state of official knowledge because that's not what he is charged with on those counts.

Unfortunately for Syl's analysis they may have to aquit on the actual Cooper charges but still believe that Libby was covering up something in his testimony. However, there is another important point along the same line as Syl's. If he said that to Cooper he must have either been already started covering up from July 10 for no discernable reason or motive. That is not credible ... therefore what he said to Cooper "don't even know if it's true" is evidence that's what he believed at the time. Which should carry weight wrt the Russert testimony too.

sbw

Syl: what do journalists really care about? National security or gossip?

Neither. Certain journalists aren't journalists because they only care about themselves.

steve

"I mean, what do journalists really care about? National security or gossip?"

OK, know any reporters? Access to gossip is the primary amenity of their jobs. The two things journalists like doing more than anything: bitching and gossiping. National security strategy discussions? Not so much.

maryrose

I don't feel they are going to find Libby guilty on the Cooper counts. Didn't they determine that Cooper's recollections were impeachable? Why would they be so important now? Libby is allowed to lie to reporters and to forget things that are unimportant{like Plame} Still a nothingburger case made by a desperate which if it goes to appeal as kate said will do very well. I'm unimpressed with the judge...too much in Fitz's pocket. Mitchell should have been made to testify.President Bush will absolutely pardon if it ever comes to that the left be damned...

Ralph L.

I believe it was a rhetorical question.

Pofarmer

This seems silly, until you consider that the charge states that the statement was made on October 14 or November 26, 2003 - as if there is some doubt as to when (or presumably if) the statement to the FBI was actually made.

So, you think that his testimony changed from the FBI interviews to the GJ, or something?

That was never testified to.

pldew

Steve and sbw,

You both couldn't be more right.

Rick Ballard

"Certain journalists aren't journalists because they only care about themselves."

Has Dem strategist Mandy Grunewald's husband ever been accused of committing journalism? If so, I'm sure he was acquitted.

boris

(FUBAR editing ... get me rewrite!)

If Libby said "don't even know if it's true" to Cooper then any cover up would have already started by July 10 for no discernable reason or motive. That is not credible ... therefore what he said to Cooper "don't even know if it's true" is evidence that's what he believed at the time. Which should carry weight wrt the Russert testimony too.

Ralph L.

Maryrose, unfortunately, I agree with Chrissy Matthews, that accepting a pardon carries a tacit admission of guilt. Wouldn't stop me from taking it for a heartbeat, however.

centralcal

Just catching up while dinner's cooking ....

Someone above said they doubted that Bush would pardon Libby (if it comes to that). Oh ... I disagree. I think Dick Cheney might just grap GW by his lapels and insist on a pardon.

I think a pardon is a given - AGAIN - if it comes to that.

centralcal

darn it *graB*

PeterUK

"I'm unimpressed with the judge...too much in Fitz's pocket."

Prosecutor without limits and 2008.

MayBee

accepting a pardon carries a tacit admission of guilt.

Why? If you've been convicted, I mean. Why would accepting a pardon of what you consider an illegitimate conviction be a tacit admission of guilt?

sbw

Silly to talk about pardons. Jury can return not guilty. Judge can set aside unfounded verdicts. Appeals could reasonably favor Libby. Rather than squander pixels on that talk it would be better to take up knitting.

Syl

centralcal

I disagree. I think Dick Cheney might just grap GW by his lapels and insist on a pardon.

Well, there is that. :) I hope you're right.

btw, 'grap' seems much more colorful and more like what Cheney would do, whatever it may mean. :)

centralcal

Syl:

btw, 'grap' seems much more colorful and more like what Cheney would do, whatever it may mean. :)

Where is H & R? I am SURE he could define grap!

Gary Maxwell

Has Dem strategist Mandy Grunewald's husband ever been accused of committing journalism? If so, I'm sure he was acquitted.

the charge was dismissed, laughed out of court actually. Make it dismissed with prejudice.

Sue

Last I saw H&R, he was propositioning Ms. Merritt. Just sayin'...

Barry

Since that proposition, neither have been heard from. Hmm...

Ralph L.

sbw, you're right, we shouldn't be playing the moonbats' game. They've moved on to double impeachment for treason anyway.

hit and run

;-)

Gary Maxwell

About sticking up for Michigan. The auto companies and the UAW ( of the AFL-CIO) did it to themselves. The UAW for demanding outrageous and unprductive work rules and unsustainable benefit packages and the Auto companies for agreeing to them. Now houses sell for less than the occupants paid for them 8 to 10 years ago, in nice and otherwise stable neighborhoods.

Ralph L.

Other than this affair, the only time I'd ever heard of Matt Cooper was when he won the Funniest Celebrity in DC title several years ago, and that was only from a fluke channel surfing stop at CSPAN.

windansea

Sylvia

How did you make your posts in green?

that is really cool!!

Ralph L.

We've lost most of our textile mills here in NC, and they weren't even unionized. Of course, most of them had moved here from the NE decades ago, so we can't really complain when they move again.

Other Tom

Just got back from a two-martini dinny-din-din with the mean wife, reviewed the past hour's posts, and concluded that this is, indeed, madness.

As things stand now I just want to make sure that, whatever the outcome, I have in fact predicted it at some point.

Rick Ballard

Ralph,

Mr. Grunewald was "positioned" in DC by the party apparat in the same way that Russert, Matthews, Stephanopoulos, Gregory, the Dana's, et al ad infinitum are positioned. Merit is meaningless - party loyalty paramount. Pravda and Isvestia are the pseudojournalistic models for DC 'press' corps.

clarice

J Verner was in town and we had dinner together--I must say it takes a long time to catch up.

I am flattered that Jeralyn likes to come here and discuss stuff with us and hope she does it more often.

Jeff

clarice

I must have missed the evidence that Armitage sought immunity. Where'd you find it?

boris

Did you have evidence that the White House was lying about behesting Joe? You seemed pretty certain based on ... well ... basicly nothing.

Oh I forgot you're the only one with a license to infer.

boris

Cue Replay: Jeff makes this inferrence ...

Discrediting Wilson required no more than telling the truth;

Whether that's the case or not, the fact is that the White House lied to do so, repeatedly. One case in point is that in responding to inaccurate reports that Cheney himself sent Wilson, they lied about the role that Cheney did play in triggering the trip.

What was the evidence for that Jeff?

topsecretk9

Shoot...I was hoping he could reiterate how Judy Miller was not protecting other sources.

clarice

Jeff, As you certainly recall I wrote this:
"Isikoff does remind us of something interesting. Ari Fleischer, who had an immunity deal negotiated by Williams and Connolly, had publicly said he wasn't even represented by a lawyer. (Who else said that? Armitage... the only other witness who appears to have been granted immunity - per the AP's Apuzzo - and the only other person known to have deliberately leaked the information about Plame.) "

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0E1F2yLHQ3AJ:justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/what_you_see_in.html+armitage+immunity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>Armitage

Now, if Armitage had been called as a witness we would have "evidence" that supported Apuzzo's assertion. And that is the only way we could get it.
Still Apuzzo has been an incredibly accurate reporter and the circumstances surrounding the SP's treatment of Armitage suggest he was not close questioned nor his calendar and visitor's logs subpoenaed. And --like Fleischer--he seems to have hoodwinked the prosecution. (Armitage-Woodward; Fleischer-Pincus).

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The jurors will "find" what they want to find.

Just like DC voters "found it okay" to vote for Marion Barry.

And, the DC police, to prove to the media, they were really trying to find Chandra Levy's body, had photographers marching along the park, where none of the police located her body. But a hiker did. AFTER.

AFTER seems to be the "KEY WORD" in play, here, too.

Libby will have to APPEAL.

And, perhaps, with the years it will take, at least waltoon won't be able to go into his "sentencing phase" anytime soon.

As to the real numbers? Turns out this case has no special interest to many.

Turns out, too, that McCain is "announcing" on Letterman; and according to Dick Morris, this, too, is a dying cause.

Politics. You can know a name. And, the person still loses.

As to the jerks on the jury? I don't think fame & fortune is there's. Though I do think they expect to get at least some TV gig-time. And, perhaps a spread in Vanity Fair. DOES IT MATTER?

Does it matter, today, who the king and queen were at your high school prom? REALLY?

danking70

Do we know what it was that got the curator bounced, had the defense smiling, and had the prosecutor crying?

Wasn't the rest of the jury questioned in front of both sets of lawyers about it?

Sara (Squiggler)

If the trip was triggered by DIA, how do you get to "they lied about the role that Cheney did play in triggering the trip?"

jerry

Ok, I'm ready to predict... tomorrow, all counts guilty... by a rigorous and responsible jury. Now I'll sink back into dreamland.

inquiring mind

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

I think Libby is emphasizing that he has no actual proof of anything about Plame, just a bunch of hearsay. Even the officials are passing on hearsay, not actual proof.

As Ari said to the reporters, you have to go to the CIA if you want to know whether she is employed there. BTW, I think the reporters could easily have forgotten the other part of what he said if the operative part was "go ask the CIA".

Other Tom

On a Tivo delay, I note that Duke has just tied it up late against the Terps. The remaining few minutes would be great if Dick Vitale had not been born...

Jeff

boris

Does clarice pay you?

What was the evidence for that Jeff?

Among other things, Libby lied to Pincus about who asked the questions of the CIA which led the CIA to tell Wilson that he was going to answer questions raised by Cheney. Libby said it was an aide to Cheney, when in fact it was Cheney.

Cathie Martin also said in fall 2003 that a question was asked, OVP got a response in a day or two and that was the end of the story, when in fact that was not the end of the story.

Anyway, clarice, as I said in the previous thread, when I suspected you were talking about Armitage, I find it totally believable that Armitage sought immunity. I had never seen any evidence of it.

It's interesting that your evidence is the odd mention in the Apuzzo deal, if only because it nicely illustrates the way people repose faith in a completely unsourced, even bizarrely offhand, item in a report when it is by a reporter that they have developed over time confidence in. It just goes to show you that it's not an effectual criticism to question a single claim in a given report even if it is unsourced and unexplained.

The comments to this entry are closed.