Newsmakers - Left

Powered by TypePad

« Closing Arguments | Main | Thank You, Clarice »

February 20, 2007

Comments

Alcibiades

Discussed? From 10 to 30 second mentions, one first by telephone and then on the run between 2 15 minute meetings is hardly discussing. And all those discussers seem to have as bad, if not worse, memories than Libby.

Yeah - unfortunately the defense forgot to stress this in their closing, which was a mistake, IMO. Because put that way, it sure looks different than the raving madness, madness of Fitz.

windansea

Plame got outed because:

She suggested Joe for mission

CIA did not require Joe to sign non disclosure agreement

Joe lied about his trip to Pincus and Kristoff

Armitage blabbed to Novak

Harlow confirmed to Novak

If someone on the jury is smart enough to figure this out...Libby walks

Rick Ballard

Lukasiak has been banned here before and will be again. Dump a truckload of Preparation H on him and ignore him.

clarice

h & r I missed your earlier post. You are the winner.

lukasiak, keep posting like that, please, it makes it so easy....

Neo

Fitz know he's lost and wants Walton to save his skinny ass by calling a mistrial.

Sue

Fitz is their hero today. Wait until he tries a terrorist again. They will be on him like a duck on a june bug for pulling the stunts he pulled with this case. Ahh...the irony in the left defending the CIA and a federal prosecutor. ::grin::

MayBee

It sounded like, at the end of the day, Walton asked the defense if they want his last admonition (why can't I spell that?) to go in writing to the jury.

The cautionary instruction I just gave do you want me to introduce that to writing?

Is anyone else reading it this way? He knows what he said isn't enough.

windansea

p losthisack

shall we delve into the HamsterWheel archives and make public your ignorance of law and countless barking mad predictions?

Feedup

It's amazing that after, what, 4 years, and countless millions of dollars, this is it. This is all he found.....

Pitiful

Sara (Squiggler

Via Jeralyn:

He moves to the difference between Libby being focused on responding to criticism of Wilson's article about his trip to Niger. There's a disconnect between everyone's recollection about his wife -- because she wasn't important until the investigation started.

There are contemporaneous notes of the talking points developed in real time by the OVP. These notes show what people thought were important. It was not Valerie Wilson.

Pofarmer

Instead Fitz snuck all this novel stuff about what Judy's notes really meant without her on the stand.

If he wanted to show how the talking points really came into being he could have recalled Cathie Martin, or even Dick Cheney and asked, 'isn't this just a rephrasing of the comments on the marked up Wilson Op-ed?'

If he wanted to contrast Libby's GJ testimony about the Rove-Novak conversation, he could have called Rove.

Fitz is a deeply unethical man.

So, why would Walton let that stand?

p.lukasiak

Can you say "disbarment", Luk?

yes, I can....and there is nothing unethical about lawyers from opposing sides agreeing to allow statements allowed in as "stipulated" truths....and that is precise how this trial ended (in a series of stipulations.)

go back and look at the amount of time that the defense requested from the court to present its case --- and the list of its potential witnesses. Then look at the defense case presented by TeamLibby.

There was, in fact, virtually no defense case. IMHO, Libby gave up, because his lawyers told him he was sunk -- and calling any of his big witnesses risked public disclosure of information that the admininstration didn't want made public--- if Libby wanted his pardon, he couldn't call Rove, Card, McClellan, Cheney, et. al...and he sure as hell couldn't testify himself.

Jane

Then it will just be a race to see who the Dem's can impeach before Jan. 20, 2009.

That's always been the race. This is just another chapter in it.

Jane

Oh dear. Will someone please block the gate from moonbatville.

Neo

I suggest that Walton bring in a set of dueling pistols. While the jury is deliberating, Walton should take Wells and Fitz outside for a duel to the death.

Other Tom

Lukasiak, which posts did you have in mind? I've been reading her posts for a couple of years now, and I know where she stands. Grow up, kid.

Caught it, Sue--had to laugh. My bad.

Pofarmer

I suggest that Walton bring in a set of dueling pistols. While the jury is deliberating, Walton should take Wells and Fitz outside for a duel to the death.

Can we get Cheney for a ringer?

MayBee

Patrick R Sullivan-
If he wanted to contrast Libby's GJ testimony about the Rove-Novak conversation, he could have called Rove.
Fitz is a deeply unethical man.

That part is just driving me crazy.
Fitzgerald argued 'til he was blue in the face to keep a "memory defense" out.
So on closing, he vouches for Libby's memory by bringing in Rove's grand jury testimony, which heretofore has not even been mentioned in this trial. Which Fitzgerald alone has access to.
I don't know how that can stand.

lurker

Luk is absolutely wrong about Libby's lawyers declaring defeat. They knew when to stop because they destroyed Fitz's witnesses through and through.

The question is what decision this DC/Democratic laden jury will decide.

The next step is the appeals process.

Patton

It appears the folks at FDL are re-experiencing Fitzmas, as if for the first time.

Except Russert who can't recall what it was...

JM Hanes

h&r

I'll see your:

9 u i 1 t y
and raise you a:
f i 2 2 l e

lurker

Via Jeralyn:

He moves to the difference between Libby being focused on responding to criticism of Wilson's article about his trip to Niger. There's a disconnect between everyone's recollection about his wife -- because she wasn't important until the investigation started.

There are contemporaneous notes of the talking points developed in real time by the OVP. These notes show what people thought were important. It was not Valerie Wilson.

Who's "he"?

Good point, Sara.

MayBee

If Libby's lawyers were truly declaring defeat, they would have started plea bargaining.

danking70

Who's he?

One of the lawyers for the defense.

Charlie (Colorado)

Can we get Cheney for a ringer?

That wouldn't be wise, would it? Last time he went hunting lawyers, he just winged one. We'd be looking for a clean kill.

JM Hanes

tops:

or Brazil." LOL!

Happy Days

For those of you wondering how it was that Fitz was able to mention Plame's covert status at this late date:

Last week after the defense rested, there were several points of law argued before the judge. This was one of them. The prosecution argued (successfully) that the defense themselves introduced the subject through their questioning of a prior witness.

Also, I have heard nothing about Fitz coming across as being hysterical in his arguments. No yelling (nor weeping!) took place during his rebuttal. Reports he seemed to be talking with a fast controlled rage.

Neo

This is all he found..... but of course he missed the boat by not going after the stuff that risked public disclosure of information that the admininstration didn't want made public.

What stuff ?

The best chicken salad recipe, I suppose.

clarice

Do you have any cites, HD for that ruling?

Patton

I would hope the defensive is going through all of Fitzs argument tonight and are going to beat him over the head with it tomorrow. Or at least have the judge instruct the jury that Fitz brought up alot of stuff that is not in evidence in this trial.

Other Tom

"There was, in fact, virtually no defense case. IMHO, Libby gave up, because his lawyers told him he was sunk..." Actually, there was a lot more presented to the jury, see, but it was done while they were sequestered at an undisclosed location near Roswell, New Mexico, where they had been taken in a pair of high-speed black helicopters.

There is nothing--absolutely nothing--that would please me more than to see the Dems bring articles of impeachment against Bush or anybody else in this administration. Oh, how I would love it. As things stand now, I don't think there's much chance of regaining control of congress in 2008--but impeachment proceedings would lock it up for the GOP.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

You want a gamble for the "21 year old gal on the beach?"

I'm sticking with Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile. Off the bridge in Chappaquiddic. Perhaps still for sale as a used car? With a big fat trunk.

I also think, if nothing else, giving Wells "another 45 minutes" won't cure the problem raised by CBOLT. On the SCALIA WORDING, I think, about the government NOT ALLOWED TO GO OVERBOARD in REBUTTAL.

That 45-minutes t'marra, can't patch it, for waltoon, either. NO EASY ANSWERS. INDEED.

As to the "jury" ... From the Caine Mutiny, the Strawberries, while Captain Queeg rolled his "lucky marbles," brought the mutineers their freedom.

But Herman Wouk didn't cleanse them. He pointed out that our system kept the Queeg's (and perhaps the queers like Fitz), only because BETTER LAWYERS left the government, to make more money in the private sector.

Then? Ya got Fitz angry at Libby. Because Libby was on the winning end of the Marc Rich case. Fitz was on the LOSING END. ANd, probably still is. Doubt he can claim Herman Wouk as a "lantsman," though. Libby, can! Go figa. And, no. I don't dispense DECODER rings.

But MISHIGAS has had its day.

WHile the jurors will probably acquit. Just in case some weren't sure? Fitz has gone nutz, beyond even his PRESSER. Will the left go "speechless?" Why presume?

Charlie (Colorado)

The best chicken salad recipe, I suppose.

You're dating yourself, Tiger Lily.

clarice

That and stripping the gear off and breaking the supply chain of the military as they head off to war,OT.

elliottg

I love the fear emanating from the diehards. Tom with bravado predicts acquittal. Others talk about Fitz losing it and the possibility of a sur-rebuttal. Libby will be found guilty. Is Tom taking bets?

topsecretkk9

From reading tidbits again - sounds like Fitz made the obsession argument for himself.

prtymbl

I'm just here for the cocktail recipes/recommendations.....

While I look around, some thoughts: I was foreperson on two federal civil trials. At the second trial, the defendant's counsel pranced around, snarking on the plaintiff, absolutely alienating the jury. I expect that Fitznutjob's BSC antics this afternoon will have the same affect on at least a few of the jury members.

Sara (Squiggler

Happy Days -- According to Jeralyn Merrit's live blogging:

"Fitz starts off yelling "Madness," referring to the defense closing arguments."

clarice

Another reality-based blogger weighs in.

Jane

Are we expecting a ruling tomorrow on something that happened today? Or did they finish the closings and tomorrow we go to jury instructions.

I'm sure Wells will file some motions in that regard, but was any door left open by Walton?

MayBee

Yes, Happy Days, I too would like to see a cite to the ruling you describe.

It is my memory that the defense won the right to stipulate that Plame did not work at Winpac.
I don't recall anything about being able to say she was covert, or to assert she worked at CPD.

Pofarmer

Can we get Cheney for a ringer?

That wouldn't be wise, would it? Last time he went hunting lawyers, he just winged one. We'd be looking for a clean kill.

Yeah, but he only had buckshot!!!!

clarice

Jane, we'll have to keep checking to see if there are any more filings before Court tomorrow. Otherwise the judge has signalled, jury instructions till 11 and then the jury retires to deliberate.

Neo

Speaking of imploding.

clarice

Jane, we'll have to keep checking to see if there are any more filings before Court tomorrow. Otherwise the judge has signalled, jury instructions till 11 and then the jury retires to deliberate.

MayBee

jane: I'm sure Wells will file some motions in that regard, but was any door left open by Walton?

The only thing I see is Walton (apparently) asking the defense if they want his last charge (sometimes lawyers say things they don't mean to say....)in writing.
That indicates to me at least, that he knows the defense is pretty angry. Will he close the door to hearing them if they file something? I don't know.

Feedup

Jury done by 4:00 pm

Syl

See? See? Libby threw sand and kept me from learning who the leaker was! er, wait.

royf

Happy Day

For those of you wondering how it was that Fitz was able to mention Plame's covert status at this late date:

This is the one I want to see evidence of happy day, since there have been no charges on this and the original leaker Richard Armitage was never ever interview by fitz.

Charlie (Colorado)

and perhaps the queers like Fitz)

Carol, it's a good thing that I think you're not of whole and uncompromised sanity; otherwise I could really start to dislike you.

clarice

TM's back! He's composing himself in the cloakroom.

topsecretkk9

Hey -- TM's back - barely...he's got a new post up - almost

Barney Frank

--Also, I have heard nothing about Fitz coming across as being hysterical in his arguments. No yelling (nor weeping!) took place during his rebuttal.--

Via Jeralyn Merritt,

--Fitz starts off yelling "Madness," referring to the defense closing arguments.--

hit and run

Clarice:
h & r I missed your earlier post. You are the winner.

Wooohooo!

There are so many people I would like to thank. First, my wife, who is my inspiration and to whom I owe everything. My kids for whom the rest of my life is devoted. The host, Mr. Maguire, who is foremost in my mind right now. I really wish he could have been here to see this....and....hey, what's that music....hey, testing, testing....is this thing on?

MayBee

Neo on Edwards- I swear he was just two weeks ago in Israel saying Iran could not be allowed to go nuclear.

clarice

Different jury,MayBee.

hit and run

JM Hanes:

I'll see your:

9 u i 1 t y
and raise you a:
f i 2 2 l e

Well, that does make me feel better.

Sara (Squiggler

I have come to the opinion that Carol Herman is not a she. She persons don't normally call other women "dames." I don't know about the "queer" remark -- my experience is hearing guy's call other guys queers, but I don't recall ever hearing a woman do so in that terminology.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

First off, I always say what I think. And, I don't need no gawd-darn support stocking freaks, either.

As to the opener, here, when Patrick said the "betting market on this case" was going for conviction ...

I'd like to say, knowing what I know about markets, that I'd take this with a grain of salt.

Markets can be manipulated. Even by an INVISIBLE HAND; when that hand isn't God's.

And, that "this better's pool" only pays off on either a jury full of "convictors." Or the jury acquits. EVERYBODY GETS THEIR MONEY BACK, if the jury hangs. Or the judge "with the cold" DISMISSES this ACME ENTRAPMENT CONTRAPTION. So the "raising the betting gates," is fer suckers. The insider's won't have to "cough up."

ANd, Fitz, certainly now adding to his PRESSER, with his reBUTTal, looks as queer to me as a $3 bill.

ANd, no, I'm not an advocate of PC.

Nor, in fact, an admirer of Affirmative Action.

Plus, at Drudge, today, the numbers are in from lots of Americans: THEY WANT AMERICA TO WIN IN IRAQ.

Let alone that Drudge hasn't really covered this stupid trial. (Except for the last five minutes on his radio show, on Sunday. WHich it made it 9:55 PM in Los Angeles. But 1:00 am in the East.) You can figure lots of people chose to go to sleep. Rather to to listen to Drudge saying this case HAS NO TRACTION with mainstream America.

And, Charlie, in Colorado, I can't even think of one single post you've made. Yet, I do follow Clarice, Hit & Run, Vietnam-Vet, Other Tom. And, my FAVORITE (because we email each other) Mark O. That's it.

Soon this whole parade will come to an end. Just as well.

Syl

We don't know what the verdict form will look like--what exact language it will have.

We've seen what fitz wants.
We've seen what Wells wants.

We haven't seen what Walton decided on, no?

MayBee

Carol, you quite possibly don't pay any attention to my posts either, and that's fine. I just want in on record that I do not appreciate your affirmative action and queer/butt posts. I don't see a need for PC, but I really, really don't see a need for your racist and bigoted comments.

clarice

That's my understanding, Syl. cboldt has all the back and forthings.

Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie, in Colorado, I can't even think of one single post you've made.

We've always sort of suspected you weren't really reading other people's posts.

Patton

THIS ISSUE STILL GNAWS AT ME:

In the indictment:
""At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife
worked at the CIA"""

Libby never claims he didn't know Wilsons wife worked at the CIA, he claimed that her told Russert that he didn't know it and that he didn't want to be a source for the information, like Novak had done to Rove.

I still don't understand Fitz point that because 8 people talked to Libby about Plame, then his statement to Russert has to be false...IT DOESN"T.

Ten people could tell me that my wife is planning a surprise party for me, and after the party if she asks me if I was surprised I would act like I was and act surprised.

Am I missing something?

glenda waggoner

Is this Pluk..12 or what? Anyone ignorant of Clarice's bonafides is definitely suffering BDS.
Great thoughts, regulars! Will a quick jury return,
when and if they get the case-be good or bad for
the defense?

clarice

The conventional wisdom is that a quick return is a guilty verdict. No matter what people say about this jury, I do not think they will treat this case lightly or be totally infected w/bds.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The only "quick return" Fitz needs should occur within a conversation he gets with GONZALES. The AG should do more than just "review" Fitz' work by what he reads in the WaPo.

MayBee, I plucked one of yours today, to send to Mark O.

And, PC sucks. You'd be surprised what people think. Even women who are forced to wear veils. Take nothing for granted, just because you don't hear it spoken.

By the way, let me recommend my monitor. I have a Ferrari. By ACER. I've had no trouble at all when the "grey box" shows up. Just letting you know I wear glasses, too. But it doesn't stop me from seeing things clearly. (DECODER RINGS ARE FOR SALE IN THE LOBBY).

boris

Why might the jury discount the 8 discussions about Plame?

They did not actually see the emperor. Eight people They know said he was wearing a resplendent and beautiful new set of clothes. One person says the emperor was naked.

Fitz: Aha 8 tell the same story and 1 is LYING!

But ask the 8 (seperately) to describe the emperors wardrobe. If they all describe the same outfit, then naked guy has lied. If they all describe something different what then? That's the real story.

boris

They did not actually see the emperor. Eight other people who did said he was wearing a resplendent and beautiful new set of clothes.

clarice

On second thought maybe I should have captioned the last post "Madness" instead of "who Stole the Strawberries?"

RichatUF

If someone on the jury is smart enough to figure this out...Libby walks

Posted by: windansea | February 20, 2007 at 05:09 PM

You forgot one windandsea: Valerie Plame-Wilson was a source for at least the Kristof and Pincus articles which were also sourced to Joe Wilson

who was it that said-"the CIA is not dumb they wanted all this to come out"

RichatUF

Happy Days

RE: Madness. I know, I saw Jeralyn's comment, too, but from what I have heard, that was a "jury wake-up", and a poke at the use of the term by the prosecution and the rest of the rebuttal was presented in a quiet, controlled voice.

Sorry, all, IANAL. I don't know how to reference a citation. I just remember my surprise when the II-thingy discussion emerged again, in the post-trial legal wrangling, and the rationale given for the argument.

MayBee

by the prosecution and the rest of the rebuttal was presented in a quiet, controlled voice.

Jeralyn also said Fitzgerald was talking too fast.

Sorry, all, IANAL. I don't know how to reference a citation. I just remember my surprise when the II-thingy discussion emerged again, in the post-trial legal wrangling, and the rationale given for the argument.

I'm not asking for a legal citation. I'm asking for a link to the discussion you are referring to.

azaghal

Is it possible Fitz and Walton are having an affair?

Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Fitz' only known significant other is a cat, back in Chicago.

clarice

Hope it wasn't left in the microwave for 3 months w/ the pizza.

azaghal

As a cat lover myself, I feel sorry for that poor animal.

Thanks to everyone for keeping me up to date. I've been occupied socializing two kittens--it helps to keep a perspective on things after weeks of following this travesty.

cathyf

azaghal, noble work. All of my cats have been more or less badly socialized...

peter

"DONT YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS. If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play. What role did VP play?"

Great argument if the defendant is named Armitage...

hit and run

I wrote earlier:
So - at first I thought that Rove had spiked Fitz' water with crazy juice.

But now I am thinking that somehow an EW comenter donned a Fitz costume and did the close themselves.

azaghal:
Fitz' only known significant other is a cat, back in Chicago.

OK, third possible scenario. Some nutrooter kidnapped Fitz' cat and demanded Fitz convincingly read from a script the kidnapper wrote.

clarice

You know, h & R, you may have hit upon something BIG.

Happy Days

"Jeralyn also said Fitzgerald was talking too fast."

I know, Maybee. It's just that talking fast not the same thing as being "hysterical" as some earlier posters seemed to think. I am under the impression Wells was speeding right along, too, and it seems to me that they both felt the pressure of the time limitation they were given.

Also, if you want to read them, the lengthy post trial discussions were fairly well documented on the Firedoglake webblog last week. (Warning: Heavy Legal Lingo. Have a big bottle of asprin handy!)

Syl

Happy Days

Were you in the courtroom?

clarice

HD Did you miss him leafing rapidly thru his notebook and saying something to the effect that this might look like he's organized..of his rapid speech and gesticulation and the utter absurdity of his comments on Cheney?

Happy Days

Clarice,

I find very few bloggers who are not emotionally invested in "winning", whatever that looks like to them, but I am only feeling sad at this point. Whatever the outcome, I think it will only widen the philosophical schism between people who already find comfort in thinking and talking in terms of our side and their side.

Whatever you may think about the appropriateness of his comments about Cheney, I can't help but feel that they are true. There is a cloud over the VP will be there for the remainder of this administration.

MaidMarion

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

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

Zeidenberg (9:30 - 11:12)

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

Wells (11:25 to 12:40)

1) Wells is awesome. Right out of the gate he was fiery and impassioned. Stood much closer to the jury box and moved back and forth. Was much more connected with the jury…talked “to” them not “at” them. You felt his need to pull out all the pent up emotion that was inside of him and his sincere interest in explaining his view of the case at hand. Very natural style.
2) “It’s not right!” “It’s not fair!” He’s appealing to the women right off the bat.
3) Juror #1 (black woman, wears hair up in a bun) had a more relaxed face with Wells. Most of the time she has been poker-faced, but with Wells she softened up slightly.
4) “If you want to be fair minded, look at Cooper’s contemporaneous notes.” He’s REALLY working the women!
5) Because Wells comes across as so likeable, sincere, and wanting to relate directly to the jurors, they immediately open up their ears. When he said “I’ve got a homework assignment for you” they were ready to oblige! Pencils were readied. It was great! They dutifully jotted down the cite.
6) The way Wells structured his closing was so much more helpful to the jurors understanding of his main points than Z’s chronological listing was to his. He whittled the problem down to “2 Reporters” and “2 Statements”. He was very smart to take the time to advise the jury what the counts were (in simple terms), the meaning of Burden of Proof, innocence is presumed, and reasonable doubt. When he said “The FBI stipulation is, in itself, all you need for reasonable doubt.” I thought: “There’s the home run.”
7) The main problem the Defense had was time management. Both Wells and Jeffries were racing to finish and had to pass over some slides.
8) When Wells said “Rove lied” about talking to Novak, the female juror (long black hair), who is normally deadpan, reacted.

Jeffries (1:40 to about 2:45)

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

Wells (3:00-3:45)

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


Fitz (4:00-5:20)

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

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

Ralph L.

Did he say that about himself, Clarice? I thought that was a funny, snarky comment by EW or Merritt, not his. It sounds like something I would say when I'm nervous. Not confidence-inspiring.

highcotton

O/T (not as in a post addressed to Other Tom, but as in comments that are totally 'off topic')

I was amused -- in a cynical sort of way -- by Sara's comment that she had decided Carol Herman isn't a "she". Sara, if you'll forgive my saying so, you're a freakin' idiot.

Alcibiades

HD:

Reading EW's not a transcript made it sound like he was talking so fast, he was incoherent. Though that might have just been her transports of ecstasy on hearing her hero display his stuff.

Moreover, he kept bringing things in that were not agreed to in the stipulations.

clarice

Maid Marion--THANKS so much for attending, taking notes and giving us that report!!!

Alcibiades

I second that MM. Quite a relief to read that and to have some understanding of how the jury was physically reacting to the trial.

Shel

Maid Marion,

This is what I wanted to hear about--the reaction of the jury. Thank you so much for your detailed summary! Excellent.

Sara (Squiggler

Sara, if you'll forgive my saying so, you're a freakin' idiot.

Sorry highcotten, can't say I feel quite so highly of you.

clarice

Well, Ralph, you may be right. As I said it was quite impossible to make a great deal out of anyone but Jeralyn's summaries today.

MayBee

Thank you, Maid Marion!

Holly

Maid Marion,

Great report. Your perspective is blessedly rational. Thanks for sharing.

MayBee

Happy Days:
Also, if you want to read them, the lengthy post trial discussions were fairly well documented on the Firedoglake webblog last week.

I am certain I read the argument to which you refer, and am equally certain you are wrong.
Could you please link to the conversation/ruling? It is your assertion, it seems you should be able to prove yourself right (and me wrong).

clarice

Niters--I leave you w/ this bit from Wikipedia to show you how accurate the Queeg analogy is --think how Fitz handled his other cases and this one:
"Another episode which highlights Queeg's behaviors occurs when a quart of strawberries go missing from the wardroom icebox. Remembering how he helped solve a mystery involving a similar theft when he was an ensign earlier in his career, Queeg attempts to recreate his former accomplishment by insisting the strawberries were pilfered by a crewmember with a duplicate key. Queeg orders every key on the ship collected, and a thorough search made. During the search, the captain is confronted with evidence that the messboys ate the strawberries. Queeg loses all enthusiasm for the search, though he orders it to continue, and it is continued in a desultory way amid public mocking [well, JOM, in this case]of the captain."

MayBee

Funny. Sweet dreams, clarice.

Jane

Maid Marion,

You bring a perspective to this trial that none of the live bloggers have. I appreciate it so much. Thank you!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame