Confusion In The Deliberation Room

Denis Collins, reporter and Libby juror, continues his fifteen minutes with a long account of the trial and deliberations available at the Huffington Post (don't wait for the book.)

I like this:

We've also heard testimony that [Libby] received from the Vice President a July 6 New York Times article by Joseph Wilson with a handwritten note about Wilson's wife.

Mission accomplished for Fitzgerald, then.  In reality, Libby testified that he never saw that marked-up op ed, and Fitzgerald offered nothing to contradict him.  Instead, it was offered as "state of mind" evidence - if it was important to Cheney, it must have been important to Libby.

Whatever.  Also in reality, Libby was convicted.

NOTE:  Background and links to relevant filings here.

Comments

[verner]

Yeah, the Huffington Post. Figures.

I wonder what his screen name is in their comments section.

And Denis hadn't maded up his mind before the trial. What Bull.

I am still in total shock that Wells let that Bozo on the jury.

[Semanticleo]

"Whatever. Also in reality, Libby was convicted."

There are other fish in the creel begging to be fried.

Speaking of lies.....How about Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici?

[roanoke]

Jeebus.

Are you reading that crap he has in italics at the beginning?

Gawd. He writes like a troll.

What the hell is that?

Dialogue-with his other personalities? Or just the jurors in his head.

[Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report]

Undoubtedly, this Collins jerk has a book deal. And it isn't with Regnery, either.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

[verner]

Collins is an old friend of Isakoff's. How much you want to bet he read Corn/Issakof's poop filled Plame lovefest before he was summoned? From Huffington Post:

"As celebrities go, the jury favorite seems to be NPR’s Nina Totenberg. Everyday Nina. She raises the class quotient considerably. My favorite court visitor was an old Post friend, Mike Isikoff of Newsweek (President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky may still have nightmares of him sneaking into their closet.) Many years ago in San Francisco, he stayed with us while reporting on drug policy for the Post. Driving back from an interview with a marijuana grower in Humboldt County, he told us he stopped to check his suitcase. Sure enough, the grower had “gifted” him a bag of Humboldt Lightning. Isikoff immediately returned it.

I said, “Damn, Mike, couldn’t you have waited til you got back here to look?”

As I sit here now, to the best of my recollection, I believe I was only joking.

It is obvious that the guy was writing this all along, and has dollar signs in his eyes.

What a creep. It is sooo obvious he had an agenda. If he had told the whole truth in voire dire, there is NO WAY he would have been allowed on the jury.

[Sue]

verner,

According to his HuffPo semi-book, he did tell the truth. They knew he wrote a book about spies. Damndest thing I ever heard of. I don't think he changed the outcome of the trial, though.

[Spin Doctor]

In reality, Libby never testified at trial notwithstanding Wells' promise to the jury to put Scooter on the stand. The problem was not with the jury -- it was with the defense.

[RichatUF]

...Instead, it was offered as "state of mind" evidence - if it was important to Cheney, it must have been important to Libby...

Cheney maked up NYT op ed->Libby state of mind

Mitchell work product on "Capitol Report"->Russert statement "it would have been impossible..."

So the court argues for the prosecution, a marked up NYT op-ed is trustworthy for purposes of Libby's state-of-mind; however, they exclude from the defense that Mitchell's work product on "Capitol Report" is untrustworthy to confront a government witness and his "it would have been impossible..."

I thought confronting a witness was fundmental to due process [ianal].

RichatUF

[capitano]

It is obvious that the guy was writing this all along, and has dollar signs in his eyes.

What a creep. It is sooo obvious he had an agenda. If he had told the whole truth in voire dire, there is NO WAY he would have been allowed on the jury.

Posted by: verner | March 07, 2007 at 08:47 AM

I wonder if he would be interested in a screenplay or supporting role in a movie version of a real life drama starring Sharon Stone as Val and, of course, Joe playing himself?

[Ranger]

I posted this in the previous thread:

We've also heard testimony that he received from the Vice President a July 6 New York Times article by Joseph Wilson with a handwritten note about Wilson's wife.

Where? Where did he hear evidence of this?

Posted by: Sue | March 07, 2007 at 08:44 AM

I don't think there ever was any testimony about that particular article. I was simply entered into evidence as contents of files discovered during the investigation. That is why I have a feeling that it can be used by Team Libby to ask for the verdict to be set aside. If the jury made findings of fact based on no actual evidence, then the verdict is erroneous.

Since Fitz never presented any evidence that the note on the article about "did his wife send him on a junket" was written before the Novak article came out, there is no evidence that Libby ever saw the hand written note before he talked to Russert (if he ever saw it at all).

Posted by: Ranger | March 07, 2007 at 08:52 AM

So, I will add a question.

If the judge allowed a piece of evidence in for a specific purpose, and it is stated by a member of the jury that they used it for a different purpose, is that grounds for setting the verdict asside and granting a new trial?

I know juries are given wide latitude, but that seems over wide.

[Sue]

Ranger,

I have no idea. The judge cautioned them on numerous occasions that something was being admitted for state of mind only not to be considered for the truth of it, but I can't believe they used the Cheney marked-up article as evidence he knew. He testified in the gj that he had never seen the article and Fitz, as far as I can tell, did nothing to counter that.

[roanoke]

Here is the reason he finds Grossman believable-in the Huffpo piece-

"I didn't know. I should have known," he said of former Ambassador Joe Wilson's 2003 uranium hunt in Niger."But I had a lot of things to do. I recognize it doesn't seem so smart now, since this became such a big deal."

But then Collins makes this statement in todays' Chicago Tribune-

Jurors swept aside the main pillar of Libby's defense--that as Cheney's chief of staff he was so overwhelmed by his job that he could not be expected to recall details of conversations with reporters.

Speaking for the panel Tuesday after its verdict was announced, juror Denis Collins said he and his colleagues regarded this as "the least convincing thing" Libby's lawyers put forward.

Chicago Tribune

[bio mom]

My heart is broken for my country. That so many on the left are gleeful about such a miscarriage of justice is frightening. I am repelled by that juror. We are truly becoming Rome before its fall. And it isn't because of George Bush.

And on the right: Jim Geraghty at NRO piles on Bush with one thing after another. No context. Just the usual NRO hysteria. With such lack of loyalty and perspective, conservatives deserve their losses. I still maintain that Bush is the only adult around these days in the Beltway. Includes both politicians and the media.

May God help us all. We are going to need it.

[Legal Lurker]

clarice, kudos on your superb AT piece. If this narrative received the same play as the Wilson/Corn version that set off this whole debacle, and continues to mislead, people might understand why the prosecution and verdict are such a travesty.

I repeat my post from yesterday -- If you are incensed and want to do something constructive, contribute to the Libby Defense Fund. Let Libby decide whether to spend it on Wells or someone else. Listening to David Boise on H&C last night, I'd be giving him a call this morning if I were Libby.

[Jane]

If the judge allowed a piece of evidence in for a specific purpose, and it is stated by a member of the jury that they used it for a different purpose, is that grounds for setting the verdict asside and granting a new trial?

The real answer is: It depends.

[Gabriel]

This is repost from another JOM comment thread.

Jane Hamsher spoke to Dennis Collins before he took the podium for HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.
Source

Hamsher also made note of her discussion with Dennis Collins, the juror who spoke to the press, before he stepped up to the podium.

"It was quite inspirational to get a chance to talk to him, and to hear how seriously the jury had deliberated," she explained.

Hamsher posted an immediate reaction to the verdict. She didn't mention her conversation with Dennis Collins. She didn't even mention him by name.
source

FDL readers seem to suggest they knew Dennis Collins during the trial or jury selection. One reader says he they knew Collins was going to write a book.
Comment #136: pachacutec

From the day of vior dire, we all had Collins pegged to write a book about the trial. I remember his questioning vividly. He was grilled a long time.

/end

Out: Katherine Graham
In: Mrs. Michael Huffington

She divorced him but kept the last name? I like Stassinopoulos so much more. There's more of her to love/hate.

["State of Mind"]

I am going to find someone today and attribute their state of mind to a likely cause.

Just for the heck of it.

[verner]

Sue,

Remember, before the trial, the marked up article was THE smoking gun for the left--

It didn't matter what Walton said--Dennis, the creepy registered democrat, spy writing, friend of Michael Issakoff UNDOUBTABLY knew about it before the trial. He even said that he read the papers AND I would bet, since he chose the Huffington Post for his first outing, is also a consumer of anti-Bush internet sites.

I think that statement alone should be grounds for a reversal of this pathetic verdict. Denis found evidence where it did not exist because because he had ALREADY DECIDED WHAT THE TRUTH WAS BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN.

[birdseye]

All this outrage by those who dislike this verdict will be a waste of time. Like all the outrage over Sandy Burglar's lenient sentence and the leaks by the NYT. Nothing will happen. I want to be wrong but it would need a President who has spine. On this one cannot be hopeful.

[PMII]

Jane,

Depends on what?

And what are your thoughts in general concerning the things the jury has been saying?

Thanks

[WA Moore]

Dear Mr. President:

Oh, President Bush, how do I blame thee. Let me count the ways. Or at least a few of them.

It started when you had your press people apologize for the "16 words" from your SOTU address, even though they were and are absolutely true.

You failed to personally take on Joe Wilson with facts to expose him as the fraud he is.

You allowed a special prosecutor to be appointed by your justice department.

You allowed your justice department to then give that prosecutor power to act independently of the justice department, reporting to no one.

You and two other Republican presidents appointed Reggie Walton to judgeships despite the fact he is incompetent as demonstrated by the Libby case. Or maybe he is competent and biased, which is as bad. You appointed Judge Walton to his current position.

You forced members of your administration to waive their 5th Amendment rights.

Most of all, I blame you for allowing Joe Wilson, a con artist, to team up with complicit MSM and your opponents in Congress to damage national security and help our enemies in the Islamist movement.

So here we are. A good man has been railroaded by a runaway prosecutor with the help of a complicit judge and a left wing DC jury. The fault is yours. Righting the wrong will be difficult and politically costly unless the courts do it.

I'd feel better if I sensed you learned any lessons from the errors you made. My fear is that you have not.

Fate served you and our nation well when the Democrats nominated first Al Gore and then John Kerry to oppose you.

Your task now is not to pardon Libby (BTW, please contribute a lot of money to his defense fund; he deserves that from you) - let the legal process continue until all legal options are exhausted. Mr. Libby deserves to be vindicated by the legal system. There will be time for pardon if that fails. Your tasks WRT this case are to get the facts out on the Wilsons and remove the special prosecutor. Oh, you should apologize to Mr. Libby in public for allowing this travesty to occur.

Your bigger tasks are with the war with radical Islam. Fight it aggressively. Fight its opponents in Congress and the media aggressively. Communicate frequently and openly with Americans about the war. Do not yield one inch to either Congress or the courts on the powers and responsibilities of the presidency. Ruthlessly root out and prosecute the leakers and go after traitors in MSM.

You have about 22 months left in office. This is not the time to play the safe political game. Now is the time to lead this nation. Risk impeachment when it is the right thing to do.

You showed unusual strength of will after 9/11. We know you are capable of doing so. You are now acting like trapped prey afraid of even you shadow. Go on the offensive and stay on the offensive for the next 22 months.

Face the fact that Democrat leadership in Congress will never work with you. Play hardball with them. Playing nice does not work. Openly question their judgment when appropriate. Hell, question their motives and voracity in the public forum.

Take on the elements of MSM that undermine the war. When they damage national security call them the traitors they are. Loudly and frequently.

Depending on the poll, your approval rating is between 30% and 40%. It is there because you have failed to lead. Damn it, lead or resign. We did not elect you to play the caged rat.

Do not fear error! Mistakes are part of the human condition; they will occur. Learn from mistakes and vow not to repeat the same ones again. Dwelling excessively on mistakes is like driving a car forward while facing its rear end.

One final point: Forget about any domestic agenda. The Democrat leadership in Congress will oppose anything you favor and support any thing you oppose. They are focused exclusively on the next election. If you happen to agree on something, so much the better.

WA Moore

PS: You should strongly consider ordering the AG to open a cold case investigation of the 1969 murder of Mary Jo Kopechne if Teddy makes more comments about your pardoning Scooter.

[Gabriel]

The White House can start leaking again regarding this matter. That is, if they want to get out behind the curve.

They pledged to remain silent while the investigation and trial proceeded. That's over. So...

It's not going to happen. The White House is beyond this.

[Neo]

This was definently a trial for everyone.

Everyone, from what I've read around says it supports their position, usually not supported by any testimony whatsoever.

Bush and Cheney are responisble, it seems, for every ill besetting this country, except perhaps today's weather, but give 'em time.

[bio mom]

Verner, As did most on the jury. But I agree, he was the ringleader (interesting that he is a journalist. Fits what we have learned to expect lately about them). I begin to understand how the poor blacks in the old South must have felt when exposed to our "justice" system. That is the situation that Libby and any other Republican faces in a considerable part of the country.

I really think I have to leave this site now and turn off the Internet. I truly cannot take this any longer right now.

[Jane]

Depends on what?

It depends on whether the Judge (or appeals Court) decides it was harmless error, or not. It's completely subjective.

[Gabriel]

WA Moore: In hindsight, who the hell cares what Joe Wilson wrote? The White House would have been better served to not read the papers so the "no newspaper" joke continues to get laughs.

A better letter is to implore the US government to actually protect agents on our NOC list rather then let them show up in Who's Who bios and think tank biographies.

[undertook]

'CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.'

Plame went to Montreal with Woolsey before the Niger operation was used against the US government. Canada might want to know why a WMD expert is in Canada. Those are a threat to naional security.

[verner]

bio mom;

Can you imagine if the reverse was true? Say one of the jurors in the Clinton's perjury trial (that of course, never happened--but certainly should have) was a writer for human Events or the Weekly Standard and a registered Republican, and after the guilty verdict, he immediately posted a 10,000 word opus on the trial on, say, lucianne.com or Hotair.com

What do you think the left's reaction would be?

[Jane]

And what are your thoughts in general concerning the things the jury has been saying?

Sadly the jury did what I expected. They walked in with their pre-conceived notions, the fiction-is-fact stuff they read every day in the MSM and decided to blame Libby for the war on terror. (Or should that be "plame Libby for the war on terror", as I first wrote. It's the same thing that everyone at Daily Kos, Firedog lake or NBC tries to do every day of the week.

And in doing so, they continued the steady march toward nazi Germany (or Rome burning) or any number of failed experiments.

And they did it with extreme vigor and glee.

And today I've heard at least two people with no dog in this hunt shrug and say it's no different than what was done to Clinton - as if that makes it okay. (That's the part that makes me know all is lost.)

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "Libby testified that he never saw that marked-up op ed, and Fitzgerald offered nothing to contradict him."

Libby went so far as to testify that he thought Cheney wrote the comments on the July 6 article only *after* the publication of Novak's July 14 article. That makes precisely zero sense. Besides, the verdict shows that Libby was not deemed as terribly credible by the jury.

Fitz showed that the comments Cheney wrote on the NY Times op-ed became part of the OVP talking points the week of July 6. It makes more sense that Cheney wrote his comments on the article when he read it on July 6 or 7, not on July 14 or 15. And given that Cathie Martin testified that Scooter, rather than Martin, was tasked with much of the Wilson-pushback PR during the week of July 6, it's not super-crazy to think that Libby's lying about not seeing the marked up op-ed.

In short, to say that Fitz "offered nothing" is false. You might not find it compelling, but he offered something.

[Jane]

Some democrat shill on Fox news saying it is absolutely not true that Armitage outed Plame.

Sheesh! Someone lock the doors.

[roanoke]

Collins and MoDo-

>No. And yet. I remember a scathing column about Miller in the New York Times and volunteer that I went to grade school with its author, Maureen Dowd. (Maureen had a crush on my brother Kevin. Her older brother Kevin was something of a hero to my youngest brother Brendan after he showed up to coach his grade school football team one Saturday morning in a convertible, with a gorgeous woman in a black cocktail dress in the front seat, and what appeared to be an empty bottle of champagne on the floor. They'd obviously been up all night. He obviously had game.)

[PMII]

Thanks Jane,

When the left gets to taste this verdict, they will vomit like us. I hope they get to taste it soon.

[verner]

Roanoak--Oh if Denis Collins isn't the biggest name dropping, puke making ass.

This is his big chance to brush up against the big league, and boy is he going for it!!!

[Bob]

Tom: I'm not quite following your point right here, but I think I have a idea what you generally feel about this mess.
I'm not a lawyer, but feel that this fellow Collins meer presence on the jury is means for consideration question to be brought down on the jury itself. He must have fudged his profile as there should have been no way someone in such close proximity to Russert should have even been on the jury. By practically knocking down Fitzgerald to get to a microphone he demonstrated he had an agenda from the beginning. Points go on and on. Nevermind his posting of his notes at the Huffington Post. Perhaps he was a frequent poster there already.
The whole sorted afair was a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a sham based on the lies from a lying liar in Joe Wilson.
Mr. Collins self-politicized his way to jury forman, couldn't wait to find the first open mike and has already published a first draft of a narrative. Nice going, pal. Perhaps you'll find yourself at some of Val and Joe's dinner parties soon and you can get David Corn to forward your book.
Ladies and gentleman, we have our newest Dem darling!

[Cecil Turner]

It started when you had your press people apologize for the "16 words" from your SOTU address, even though they were and are absolutely true.

I agree that's the critical error. But it obviously wasn't planned, and the blame for it belongs to Fleischer's news conference, where--in response to a leading "gotcha" question--he talks himself into it and blows the Administration position to the point where it's indefensible. (Much as he had in response to "imminent threat" questions earlier.) Bush is responsible in the sense of hiring him, but . . .

Libby went so far as to testify that he thought Cheney wrote the comments on the July 6 article only *after* the publication of Novak's July 14 article.

Cite, please.

[SunnyDay]

Personally, I just want the satisfaction of seeing the referral and Fitz affidavit re Miller. I don't think it will make any difference, though.

There is a higher power, and people will answer for what they do (or don't do). Fitz has some serious answering to do, if a fraction of what I've read about him is true.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'We decide that Hannah's testimony hurts another aspect of the defense case. Wells spent a lot of time working the argument that Mrs. Wilson was hardly on Libby's radar, much less an important focal point. And here was Hannah saying he had to stay late just to get a minute or two with Libby. So why would Libby set aside three hours of his day (it's on his calendar) to talk with Judith Miller?'

Poor logician. The talk with Miller was mainly about the NIE, not Valerie.

[Jim E.]

It was well-known that Collins was a reporter who used to be a neighbor of Tim Russert. Everyone knew that prior to his being seated on the jury. Colins was also -- and this is a point conveniently ignored in all of this juror hand-wringing around here -- an employee of one of defense's star witnesses, Bob Woodward. None of this was a surprise.

[roanoke]

verner

Oh if Denis Collins isn't the biggest name dropping, puke making ass.

I love that-LOL! Thanks I needed that-gawd this is unbelievable-

Man my memory is shot but how is he making this claim-?

During a meeting at the White House, deputy National Security Adviser Hadley complained that NBC's Andrea Mitchell was working on a story that would help the reputation of the Office of the Vice President only at the expense of the White House. Knowing that Cathie Martin had been given some of that information, Hadley turned the evil eye upon her.

Martin knew she hadn't spoken to Mitchell. She also knew that her boss Libby had. But when asked what Libby did to defend her reputation in that room, she answered. "He lowered his head."

Libby tlked to Mitchell and that was in the testimony?

I'm getting confused.

[Jim E.]

Cecil,

I don't have a page number, but it was in the GJ testimony. Libby didn't say it definitely, but he said he thought it could be a week later. It's a bit of a funny exchange (at least to me -- I didn't listen to that particular part), because then Fitz starts asking about Cheney's desk, and whether it is full of scissored articles from past weeks and months that Cheney re-reads and marks up well after their publication dates. It seemed sort of a sarcastic question. Scooter then says that Cheney's desk is rather neat, and that while he couldn't say for sure what all of the papers were, he thought only 2 or three would be articles.

[Sue]

You're spinning Mr. E. There is no testimony or evidence that Cheney gave the marked-up article to Libby. And that is what this juror clearly said.

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

I would think that you're overplaming the mouthpiece a little. Dan Bartlett was the communication director and the communication director is responsible for the message. The flack's job is to present the message. Bartlett appears to be as incompetent as Karen Hughes was competent. He has fulfilled the Peter Principle in all respects and the President's poll standing reflect his mastery of mediocracy. I would note that Cathie Martin's incompetence was sufficient for her to retain a job with the administration as well - she made the lateral shift from the OVP to Deputy Communication Director reporting to --- Bartlett.

Their incompetence must only be exceeded by their servility.

[clarice]

Yes Libby talked to Mitchell at about the same time he said he talked to Russert which is why some of us think he got the 2 conversations scrambled.

[roanoke]

OK I kid you not he calls Matt Cooper hit & run-

Mathew Cooper: Hit and Run

Hahahha that's the title of that section.

Boy somebody here is going to be insulted...

[topsecretk9]

-Posted by: Jim E. | March 07, 2007 at 09:43 AM-

I agree with Mr. E on this point. I also remember the Spy Novel. I did not recall that he was Russert's neighbor though.

I am not surprised by any of his conflicts/associations, I am more embarrassed/appalled the man is a carbon copy of Wilson and his media whoring and rushes to the very neutral HuffPo (I think Gabriel is hinting at this obvious cozyness).

During deliberations someone posted a court room rumor that the reporter was on the guilty war path (they said "holdout"). I have to say that rumor sounds true, and if so, troubling that people covering the trial somehow knew this.

Was Collins "leaking" to reporters?

[roanoke]

clarice-

Then-oh I give up-I don't understand how that could not have been used as a means to get Mitchell to testify.

[Legal Lurker]

Am I the only one who's beginning to think Denis Collins may turn out to be "the gift that keeps on giving"?

[topsecretk9]

Legal Lurker

Why, because it will piss Walton off? Esplain Lucy.

[roanoke]

Legal Lurker-

Oh ya! I'm thinking the same thing butter this turkey up and keep basting.

Someone-Bob Woodward should have a loooooooong taperecorded conversation with him full of flattery and only interupt him with-

"You don't say"..like comments.

[Cecil Turner]

Colins was also -- and this is a point conveniently ignored in all of this juror hand-wringing around here -- an employee of one of defense's star witnesses, Bob Woodward.

It's worth pointing out Bob Woodward was the defense's star witness because he had Armitage leaking on tape. (Something Fitz coulda found with minimal effort, btw.) Not because he's a conservative bulwark.

I don't have a page number, but it was in the GJ testimony.

I think you're relying on something other than the source, or a fallible memory. Here's the most pertinent exchange, and it's not quite as described:

Q. And lastly, it says, "or did his wife send him on a junket?" Do you recall the Vice President indicating or asking you or anyone in your presence whether or not ambassador Wilson's wife had arranged to have him sent on a junket?
A. I think I recall him -- I don't recall him asking me that particular question, but I think I recall him musing about that.
Q. Okay. And do you recall when it was that he mused about that?
A. I, I think, I think it was after the Wilson column.
Q. Okay, and obviously --
I A. I'm sorry, I don't mean the Wilson column, I'm I sorry, I mis-spoke. I think, I think it was after the Novak column.
Q. Okay. And you mentioned last time that you thought that the questions written, handwritten here, may have been discussed at a later date, like August or September by the Vice President?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And--
A. I don't know, later. I don't know when, but yes.

And FWIW, I think he's wrong . . . But he obviously had no clear recollection, nor does he claim to know whent the VP wrote the notes. (Nor is there any way to construe this as perjury or obstruction.)

[WA Moore]

From LegalTimes.com on January 23, 2007: • Seat 9, Juror 1869: A white male and a former Washington Post reporter who once had Bob Woodward as an editor. He used to share space with Tim Russert of “Meet the Press.” While he had questions about the Bush administration’s rationale for going to war, he said that, “I’m very skeptical about everything I hear until I see it backed up.”,

Cite

[Rick Ballard]

Legal Lurker,

No. Let us all praise Denis Miller to the sky as the epitome of the prosecutor's man on the jury - the man capable of continuing the prosecutor's job during deliberations and then bringing his efforts to public view.

Denis Miller - Co-persecutor.

[boris]

Italiacto!

[Dwilkers]

el-Fixio

[Dwilkers]

You know, I was inclined to think all the stuff about this juror yesterday was a bit overblown, but with him publishing this in HuffPo I am starting to get a bad feeling. He clearly didn't write all that last night. He's been writing (and hence planning) this since day one.

[cathyf]

Shoot -- put this on the wrong thread...

So a legal question. I have heard the statement that a jury's deliberations are not reviewable. But jurors are finders of fact, and the question of whether Libby saw Cheney's annotations to the article (and before Jul 11th) is certainly a factual matter -- either it happened or it didn't. By admitting Libby's 8 hours of testimony into evidence without in any way offering any objection to Libby saying that this discussion happened after the Novak column, didn't the prosecution de facto stipulate that there is no evidence that Libby saw the article, at least not before he talked to Russert, and, in fact, the prosecution provided no evidence that Cheney even made the annotations before Jul 11th?

Can a jury really "find" a "fact" which both prosecution and defense have stipulated is false? And is that really not reviewable or appealable? What about a jury "finding" a "fact" for which no evidence has been presented to them -- is that not reviewable/appealable?

[Cecil Turner]

I would think that you're overplaming the mouthpiece a little. Dan Bartlett was the communication director and the communication director is responsible for the message. The flack's job is to present the message.

Read the whole thing. I'd submit Ari is changing the message on the fly (it evolves in the exchange). And, just as in the "imminent threat" discussion, it's apparent that he just doesn't understand the significance of the underlying material (i.e., "imminent threat" is a casus belli, and that the "16 words" weren't based on the forgeries).

[Legal Lurker]

The more Collins writes and says about how the jury understood and evaluated the evidence, the better from my perspective. After Fitz, he becomes another man on a mission -- and will provide some interesting assistance and ammunition for purposes of appeal and otherwise. Let him talk.

[topsecretk9]

Rush is reading TM's Stand Up Comedy post

[Cecil Turner]

By admitting Libby's 8 hours of testimony into evidence without in any way offering any objection to Libby saying that this discussion happened after the Novak column, didn't the prosecution de facto stipulate that there is no evidence that Libby saw the article, at least not before he talked to Russert, and, in fact, the prosecution provided no evidence that Cheney even made the annotations before Jul 11th?

No. The conversation with Addington is clearly related, and it's a plausible inference that the notes (and subsequent discussion) led to Libby asking him about it. (And personally, I think it's the correct one.)

[verner]

Yeah Top, but it's one thing saying "I live across the Alley from Russert and party with Walter Pincus"...that might be OK, but if you don't add "and I think they are great, and I absolutely hate the Bush administration, and plan on printing up a summary of the trial for the Huffington Post immediately after this is over to make sure the democrat enemies of Bush achieve a maximum impact--while also raising my book advance to six figures." That right there is a problem.

Think about it. It was in Denis Collin's SELF INTEREST to find Libby guilty, and to convince his fellow jurors--who he no doubt influenced with his "insider" point of view, that they should do likewise.

Hey, do you think that MoDo would ask him for drinks if the jury had found him innocent" Issakoff? Heck no, he would be an outcast--and nobody would want to buy his book.

As it is, he's got La Huffington purring in his ear with a "job well done..." And, I bet, a nice bump on amazon.com for his spy book. The guy has been a journalist for most of his adult life, and thanks to the Libby verdict that he helped to manufacture--he has never been more widely read or celebrated in his life.

The more I think about it, the more I want to throw up. Like all the rest of them, he is going to profit from injustice, and the destruction of a man's life.

[boris]

But he obviously had no clear recollection, nor does he claim to know whent the VP wrote the notes.

It seems to me that many of the jury notes give the impression they were trying to convert all the charges into Libby lying about forgetting. Post convitions statements bear that out wrt Russert. My interpretation was never that they confused lying to Cooper with lying to the GJ, but rather they thought Libby lied to the GJ about what he actually knew about Wilson's wife WHEN he was talking to Cooper and not what he said.

Guess my point is that by removing all contextual caveats of isolated statements from 8 hours of fitzgibberish interrogation they cherry pick statements that appear more assertive then the totality of his testimony conveys.

Bias + Subjective Interpretation + Cherry Picking = Inaccuracy

[MikeS]

verner:
I can remember 2 cases where the jury was vilified by the press after the verdict.
The O.J. and Rodney King cases.

[Bob]

Love the metahor, legallover. It works for me. Collins may turn out to be another, say, John Kerry. Wonder if he'll have the same make-up guy that Joe Wilson when he's on Meet the Press with his boss, Russert.

[Gabriel]

Collins does have the best protection money can buy - his work colleagues.

Come to think of it, operating a deli is an awful front for organized crime. A newspaper is a thousand times better.

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

I agree that Fleischer's understanding of the actual issue was marginal. The purpose of having a communication director as well as a flack is to establish clarity of message. Bartlett never got there and Fleischer's attempts at improv are (IMO) just a reflection of Bartlett and Martin's continuing incompetence. Ms. Rice suffered from the same incoherence of unified message.

Karen Hughes (or Mary Matalin) could have handled the matter efficiently. Dan Bartlett and Cathie Martin can't find their asses with a map on just about any reactive issue that I can think of. Dan Bartlett is obviously an excellent courtier but that doesn't make him an excellent advisor by any stretch of the imagination. He's consisitantly late (vide Katrina) and consistently fumbles.

I believe that Fleischer sold his testimony to Fitz and I find him rather contemptible in that respect but he had already checked out by the week of July 6th - and it was Bartlett's responsibility to provide and keep him on message.

[Cecil Turner]

Guess my point is that by removing all contextual caveats of isolated statements from 8 hours of fitzgibberish interrogation they cherry pick statements that appear more assertive then the totality of his testimony conveys.

Good point. I particularly liked some of the reasoning Libby used in his recall. For example:

Q. And do you believe the boondoggle was in the second conversation, not on July 12th?
A. Yes, that's what I think. But I, I don't think it was in the van because my recollection, you know, could be wrong, but my recollection is that when he raised it, I was standing.
Q. You were standing?
A. That's my recollection.
Q. Standing where?
A. I don't remember. But I remember sort of either sitting or leaning down after he said it because . . . [emphasis added]

Hilarious. And sorry, folks, but that's exactly how memory works with those of us who rely predominantly on visual cues. You don't remember events so much as things you associate with them. And reliable it ain't. This smacks of nothing so much as grilling someone over months-old minutiae and mining the result for actionable statements. I'm surprised Libby played the game, but less than ever convinced there are any real lies in there.

I believe that Fleischer sold his testimony to Fitz . . .

I'm not sure what to believe about Fleischer. He's obviously wrong, but I suspect sincere. The bottom line is that the Plame detail just wasn't important . . . still isn't, for that matter.

[Enlightened]

Well, I am very happy to hear Rush just lambasting Joe Wilson this morning. Everything he has said today has been reverberating in my brain since hearing this sham verdict. He cites Clarice again and JOM - and just hink of all those listeners - actually hearing real truth. A glimmer of hope.

Our society is slowing but surely becoming the cesspool envisioned by the dopeheads of the 60's. I just won't stand for it.

[MikeS]

I'm surprised Libby played the game:

Libby knew the right answers are "I don't remember", but he was ordered to cooperate.

[Jim E.]

Cecil write of Scooter: “he obviously had no clear recollection.”

Actually, this is not quite right. Scooter supposedly has a **very clear** recollection that he never spoke about Wilson’s wife with anyone that week until after talking to Russert. And outside of a handful of folks around here, and none of the jurors, that’s just not believable.

I also wrote a much longer comment with tons of excerpts from both GJ visits to counter your strange assertion that my summary-from-memory wasn't correct, but I deleted it. I don't see what I got wrong, but I suppose it isn't worth the bother.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Plame went to Montreal with Woolsey before the Niger operation was used against the US government. Canada might want to know why a WMD expert is in Canada. Those are a threat to naional security.

Well, we know that the CIA was following up on the Australian discovery of the Alum. tube shipment that ultimately ended up in Jordan and that investigation took them to Australia, Britain and Canada. I don't know if the dates match up, but that could be one explanation.

[arrowhead]

"The more Collins writes and says about how the jury understood and evaluated the evidence, the better from my perspective. After Fitz, he becomes another man on a mission -- and will provide some interesting assistance and ammunition for purposes of appeal and otherwise. Let him talk."

Legal Lurker - Exactly.

Collins sounds like he came right off the pages of a John Grisham novel (Runaway Jury). Scary.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jane: I saw that dem. strategist this morning. She flat out called it a lie that Armitage was the leaker and insisted that Libby was. Sheesh!

[jeff z]

For what it's worth--and I'm using my job experience, which is considerable in this one area--I think the WSJ had it right.

One crucial accomplishment in advancing a business agenda is to be certain that the you have addressed the interest(s) of the person "sitting across from you." For example, if you are a salesperson, you'd better know how the buyers make their bonuses. Otherwise, no matter how advantageous your product/service is to the buyers' company as a whole, unless it helps them achieve their ends, forget it.

By Fitz's own admission, he's wrapped things up. In fact he did it before--this is crucial: BEFORE--the trial, meaning that he had accomplished what he wanted. Nothing the trial would have revealed was of any further use or interest to him (Sorry to those who wanted Rove and the VP on the stand. Never was going to happen.)

So, what was in Fitz's interests? What did he actually do? Who did he prosecute? Where did he direct the resources of his office? Most to the point: Who did he go after? Who did he hurt? Who did he put in jail?

Answer, of course, Miller and Libby.

So here's another question: Who in this whole complex affair, with numerous potential targets, charges, activities, etc, did Fitz feel he had a score to settle with?

Answer, of course, Miller and Libby.

QED.

As Sherlock Holmes put it (more or less), "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever's left, no matter how improbable, is the solution."

Or, as an even better detective, Nick Charles (William Powell, The Thin Man): "It's the only way it makes any sense."

[owl]

All the connections...yesterday, someone on FOX said this juror was Russert's neighbor. Following this crap from the Joe's first TV appearance and that was news to me. Later read the quote that he 'shared space' and discounted the neighbor bit. Is it true?

Now I read that he was chummy with Issy. Not only was Issy a Hardball favorite, and a Cornite, but I watched Cooper and Issy work a show together. The target was Rove. Now this juror is saying they all sat around saying 'where is Rove and the others'. Must be the Aspens.

[Jim E.]

One of the Watergate folks (Chapin, maybe?) went to prison for saying "I don't recall" too many times and too conveniently. So that wasn't necessarily the best option for Libby. On the other hand, Scooter would have faced way fewer charges since he himself created some of the charges out of his own story-telling.

Also, I think there's an argument to be made that Libby's lawyers (not Wells, the guy he had before -- Tate?) botched this. It's only a hunch, but my guess is that Armitage and Rove's testimony evolved from appearance to appearance. I'd bet that what Rove "remembered" in the fall of 2003 was a hell of a lot different than what he was testifying to in his fourth (or was it fifth?) GJ appearance in the summer of 2005. Seems like Fitz was very forgiving to witnesses who changed their stories. Who knows, maybe Libby's wondering whether he should have run back to the GJ two or three more times. Maybe Fitz was looking for reasons not to indict.

OK, not a very compelling hunch. But I do wonder what Libby and his wife think of Rove right now. And I wonder if Libby has second thoughts about not going back in front of the GJ. (As I recall, Rove volunteered to go back.)

[BarbaraS]

The whole trial was a waste of time. The jury only remembered the last thing they heard which was Fitzgerald's rebuttal. This verdict was caused by the asinine idea of not giving the jury the transcript of the trial and expecting them to remember what happened at the time they were emoting to an audience or snoozing. I doubt their notes if they actually took any told them a thing.

If this is justice count me out. However, Libby was dumb to tell them so much. I was telling my 21 year old grandson about the verdict. He told me any lawyer will tell you don't talk to any law enforcement officer without a lawyer and its best not to volunteer anything anyway

This game of gotcha law enforcement is playing is probably backfiring on them big time. No one with any sense will even talk to them at all. Also it doesn't give anyone any confidence about "doing the right thing".

[Legal Lurker]

Note that in Collins' HuffPo piece where he recounts Woodward's testimony, he conveniently fails to mention the Woodward/Armitage tape and exchange ... which included the "everyone knows" comment.

Rush is now quoting Clarice's piece.

[Cecil Turner]

OK, not a very compelling hunch.

Yeah, not really. The initial suspicion was that Rove's involvement in this was significant. It wasn't. The only thing remotely actionable was initially forgetting Cooper's phone call. But as Cooper apparently forgot what it was about . . .

[roanoke]

Cecil-

That last example is sad.

How the heck did a memory expert not testify?

I am beginning to think that is error numero uno.

The jurors want to send Libby to jail or at least the one that is yammering because essentially Libby remembered one day forgot the next then remembered two days later.

Well that is how memory loss begins. It fluctuates like that.

I'd have Libby examined by physicians or geriatric psychiatrists to see if he is exhibiting early memory loss.

Hell I'd do a CAT scan looking for Lewy Body Dementia- anything.

What if Barry Goldwater or Reagan had been sent to jail for memory lapses?

Would that have been justice?

[Spartacvs]

Rush is reading TM's Stand Up Comedy post

Well, I am very happy to hear Rush just lambasting Joe Wilson this morning. Everything he has said today has been reverberating in my brain since hearing this sham verdict. He cites Clarice again and JOM - and just hink of all those listeners - actually hearing real truth. A glimmer of hope.

A hint for those wishing to have their opinions taken seriously in discussions regarding this matter anywhere but here apparently. Don't invoke Rush as the bearer of truth.

[roanoke]

owl-

This is the quote from Collins at HuffPo-

Until a year or so ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor. His back yard and mine shared an alley and a basketball hoop where our sons played. I attended a few neighborhood barbecues in his back yard.

Attorneys at both tables are suppressing "ain't this a small town" grins.

[roanoke]

If I was on the appeals team I'd get Libby to the physicians, find something affecting his memory -hell a thyroid test something present that as new evidence and ram that damn memory expert in.

[hit and run]

roanoke:
OK I kid you not he calls Matt Cooper hit & run-

Mathew Cooper: Hit and Run

Hahahha that's the title of that section.

Boy somebody here is going to be insulted...

I Demand A Question Mark Be Put After That Statement!

After all, they made me Cooper put one after "War on Wilson?"

[james]

Jim E

Scooter supposedly has a **very clear** recollection that he never spoke about Wilson’s wife with anyone that week until after talking to Russert.

Got a cite for that?

[verner]

Roanoak--to let you know how utterly pathetic the DC jury pool is, Byron York speculated that Wells let him on because all of his other prospects were WORSE.

Can you imagine.

[Tom Maguire]

Actually, this is not quite right. Scooter supposedly has a **very clear** recollection that he never spoke about Wilson’s wife with anyone that week until after talking to Russert. And outside of a handful of folks around here, and none of the jurors, that’s just not believable.

I wonder - I think he testified to a recreated memory. In other words, as of October 2003, he did not think he could have discussed Plame with Fleischer on July 7 because he remembered being surprised by Russert three days later.

But I suspect that if we reviewed the transcript, he does not claim to have a distinct memory of *not* discussing Plame with Ari (and what is a distinct memory of a non-event, exactly?)

So, if he had a revelatory phone call with Andrea Mitchell on the morning of the 7th and got her confused with Russert, he may have later figured (by checking dates) that he learned about Plame on the 10th.

As to confusing Mitchell with Russert - maybe he remembers a big chat with whoever did the MTP show, forgetting that she sat in for Russert that week.

Well, the defense tried to make these points...

[hit and run]

Tom:
and what is a distinct memory of a non-event, exactly

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have yada yada yada

Oh wait, actual event.

[roanoke]

hit and run-

I demand you sue{?}

verner-

Oh I do believe that one. I thought the same thing. Believable but still shocking. You know how you think the Dems have gone about as low as they can go-and you believe it when they go lower yet you are still shocked.

[cathyf]

Cecil -- good point about the "standing up" analysis. Another point is that when it comes to distinguishing one phone call from another, a non-autistic human has very few stored cues to differentiate among a group of phone calls that were made from one place over a whole span of time. So if you are talking about calls which Libby made from or received in his office, every memory has him holding the same phone, sitting at the same desk, sitting in the same chair, staring at the same wall. If Libby's phone conversations with Novak, Mitchell, etc. put Libby in the same physical space as his phone conversation with Russert, then the whole argument about confusing one speaker for another is much stronger.

But Walton refused to allow a memory expert. And refused to allow Mitchell to be questioned about her phone call with Libby. And Fitzgerald didn't subpeona phone records. I suppose it doesn't really matter since the jury made up their own "facts"...

[Pofarmer]

Don't invoke Rush as the bearer of truth.

Yes, obviously Al Franken or Mike Isikoff invoke a much higher standard.

[roanoke]

hit and run-

Oh ya that reminds me when plamehouselover came in a thread and demanded we thank FDL for finding the truth.

I was like sure as soon as you write a thank you note to the Rockville, Maryland DNA labs for finding the "truth" on the blue dress.

Please.

[Dwilkers]

OK here York says what I was alluding to earlier. Is it OK for a juror to be writing something like this during the trial?

Did a juror get tossed off the OJ jury for cribbing notes for a book during the trial? I know that's state court and this is federal. Still, this seems dicey to me.

Any of you lawdogs know if this is kosher?

[Spartacvs]

Yes, obviously Al Franken or Mike Isikoff invoke a much higher standard.

Al Franken no, but I seem to remember Isikoff was considered a darling of the RW for his reporting during the Clinton impeachment saga. Inconveniently he apears to have got hold of the wrong side of this story as far as you are concerned.

Life's like that sometimes.

[Jim E.]

TM,

For a guy -- you-- who seems to read everything about this case, I gotta say, I haven't seen much evidence that you've read and listened to the GJ testimony. I've been meaning to ask you about that, because I think if you'd listened to it or read it, you might have a teeny weeny different view of poor little Scooter. Who knows, maybe you listen to it on your Ipod all the time, but it doesn't seem like you've gotten into it much. I don't recall you referencing it in your posts. But perhaps I'm wrong about that, and you've reviewed it as thoroughly as you review NY Times editorials.

Anyways, in terms of the Ari/Wilson's wife conversation, Libby says "I don't recall that." He repeatedly references the Russert call. Fitz at that point, has been methodically going in chronological order, and has to keep telling Libby that he'll get to Russert later.

If you listen to it, whenever Fitz asks about Libby talking to Ari, Cathie Martin, Cheney, Sanger, and others, all Libby keeps mentioning is Russert. It's a mantra with him: Russert, Russert, Russert. His entire testimony, at least the part dealing with Wilson's wife, revolves around the Russert call, which he "remembers" quite well.

I don't think Libby ever goes so far as to say: "That conversation never happened like that" -- he says "I don't recall" ... followed by the obligatory assertion that he learned it anew from Russert.

Finally, Libby was out of town that weekend, and claims he never watched MTP that Sunday. So I don't think that theory of yours -- which I don't remember the defense floating -- works either. Geez, good thing he didn't watch T2 that weekend, or maybe Libby'd think he learned about Plame from a cyborg.

[Snowbunnie]

Considering all that Denis Collins has had to say it appears clear to me that this was a set up from the getgo. From the very MOMENT John Ashcroft recused himself the fix was in. They were handed the platform from which to 'get' someone in the administration and anyone would do, otherwise Mr. Fitzgerald would never have proceeded because he knew from the beginning that no one had committed a crime. If they had, Mr. Armitage would have been indicted. The jury pool was overwelmed with Moveon.org types so it is not surprising that Mr. Collins with his questionable connections ended up on the jury. The entire process was and is a miscarriage of justice;a blatant attack on the administration in a time of War. Treason and sedition pure and simple. All are complicit from the Justice Department Comey, Fitzgerald, plame, wilson, and the media. All hand in hand, toe to toe guilty of treason and sedition and smearing an innocent man with the feigned outrage of liars and traitors.

[clarice]

Dwikers, no law that I know of. Let's appoint a special special prosecutor and seize his pc's just in case he wrote the ending first.

[clarice]

Jim E, a prosecutor who was really interested in justice might have indicated to Libby on his second interview that Russert had denied it and asked if perhaps he had confused him w/ someone else. OTOH we know that the FBI had two interviews w. Russert (actual notes missing). IIn the first he said he didn't think he'd said that to Libby but it was "possible".In the second Eckenrode tells him what Libby said. See, he gave him a chance to reconsider.
And then we know about how the NBC lawyers and Russert hid the fact that he'd talked to the FBI so that when Libby went before the gj he had no way of knowing that.All he knew was that Russert was fighting the subpoena tooth and nail.
Cute, huh?

[Enlightened]

And so, Libby's mantra of Russert, Russert, Russert obstructs the investigation of Armitage the Leaker of Valerie Plame - How?

And Libby's "perjury" vis a vis Russert, Russert, Russert, obstructed the investigation of Armitage the Leaker of Valerie Plame - How?

It doesn't. The Leaker was known to the investigators. The Leaker was known to Reporters.

The crime of lying to investigators to obstruct a crime they were no longer investigating is the New Black for the Left.