Powered by TypePad

« And So This Is Fitzmas... | Main | Fitzgerald's Future In Stand-Up »

March 06, 2007

Comments

Enlightened

Well, I would certainly think just the info exposed here is highly prejudicial to Libby.

Now he got on the jury by either:

Lying - Said he does NOT know any of the witnesses, the defenedant, the lawyers etc. (oops, I sat in a cube with Pumpkinhead)

Said he is not associated with any intelligence agencies (oops - I only wrote a book about them)

Said he does not read the NYT or WAPO (oops I just worked for them)

Said he can be objective in obtaining a verdict? (oops, we convicted him but wanted Cheney and Rove, my bad)

OR:

He told the court:

I know Russert and Woodward
I wrote book on spying
I worked for the NYT and WAPO
I have not formed any opinion in this case

Actions certainly speak louder than words. Looks like Fitzy got his stealth juror.

Jane

justathought,

Welcome! Don't know if I agree with your theory, but it's as good as any!

Centracal,

I think you are talking about the motion to quash (AKA motion to squash) that Russert filed alleging that testifying to the jury would undermine his journalistic integrity.

He succeeded in making sure that journalists will never have the same access again. The 4th estate has been moved to the slums.

roanoke

RichatUF

The Monteserrat Review spells the "denis" -"Dennis" while Amazon.com spells it Denis.

MayBee

Lurker-
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002684.php>Senate and http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002692.php >House

MarkO

This trial, like many others, was unfair. It was unfair in all the ways commonly described: liars, wild prosecutor, wrongful commission, no underlying crime, a moral conflict of interest for the prosecutor and his boss, “lost” exculpatory evidence, poor memories and bad notes, a witness who can say it is “impossible” that he forgot something, erroneous evidentiary rulings, ad infinitum.

It is possible that Libby lied, but it seems unlikely. Even at the end of the day, Fitzgerald struggled to explain how these “lies” affected the process. I gathered that he said it was wrongful for Libby to say he learned from reporters when it seemed he heard from official sources. I still do not understand.

The shame of the trial is its corruption by actions that are completely legal. First, the restrictions on Libby’s ability to discover relevant evidence that could have lead to his exoneration. Among the evidence important but closed to him the testimony of Russert, Mitchell, Gregory, Armitige, the FBI and others whose evidence, in a civil case, would be available. I believe that evidence would have changed the outcome.

Because of this evidentiary restriction, NBC’s lawyers earned their large fees by arranging privilege in such a way as to keep the needed evidence will protected by that very privilege.

Well, so it goes.

MayBee

I can see the defense accepting Denis even though they knew he knew Woodward and Russert. They could easily have thought he would respect Woodward and pay attention to what he said about Armitage.

From what I've heard, Denis didn't mention Armitage at all in the Great Cheney Plot Conviction.

lurker

Oh, DJDrummond just came up with a really good post:

Democrats and Justice

Well, now it's official.

A Republican accused of a crime can expect Justice from a D.C. jury in 2007, to about the same degree a black man accused of a crime in Alabama could expect Justice in 1907.

And...

AP is now calling for Cheney to resign:

Libby verdict puts focus on White House

Calls are coming in to the White House???

Think we should write to the White House to NOT force Cheney to resign. There are no grounds for Cheney to resign. There are just a few more months left to go. Besides, if Cheney resigns, then Pelosi replaces Cheney, which gives the Sentate Democrats more majority power. No way in hell.

roanoke

RichatUF

Sorry -

I magnified the image of the Nora's Army book cover and it is defintiely spelled

Denis. with only one "n" .

Sara (Squiggler)

It is DENIS with one N according to Denis Collins when introducing himself at the mikes post verdict.

Other Tom

I think that, for the Left, Fitzmas morning occurred earlier today, and now the bleakness of Fitzmas afternoon is setting in: it's all over, and this is all they got. Fitz is going back to his day job, the investigation is "inactive," and he doesn't anticipate filing any further charges.

Remember when twenty-two indictments were "imminent?" Remember when the moonbats were breathlessly awaiting the unsealing of the May 13, 2006 Rove indictment? It's all gone now--all gone.

Remember that empty feeling, that letdown you had as a kid as darkness began to settle in late on December 25? That's where they are now. And it's going to be fun to watch from here on out.

RichatUF

Dave W-S

I think you might be right...the Spy Book looks like some sort of vanity imprint...but the name on the NA book I've found has the author spelled Denis and Dennis

RichatUF

Sara (Squiggler)

Pelosi doesn't replace Cheney if Cheney resigns. That is the President's right to do and he would name the successor. Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency if both the President and Vice President are unavailable. Think Nixon. VP resigns, he appoints a new VP, Nixon resigns, VP becomes Prez.

roanoke

RichatUF


On the book cover it's only with one "n".

Looking_for_a_way_out

I agree that ultimately the defense made some critical mistakes, the jury selection seems strange (a lawyer, a journalist and two PHDs), opening with the scapegoating charge, putting Hannah on the stand, arguing for deliberations to go forward with only 11 jurors, and generally not presenting an effective defense. But I just don't think they had any good options. Libby should have said he "did not recall" rather than saying the specific things he did about Russert. It sounds like its the specificity, the "it surprised me" or whatever he said detail that the jury keyed on to decide he lied. Remember the defense tried to damage Russert's credibility but the prosecutors, seemingly effectively, argued that it was a he said, he said, she said, he said, he said etc. situation and Scooter never testified to allow any of his confusion defense into evidence.

I have often wondered if Fitzgerald's appointment actually was driven by obvious obstruction by Rove and Libby rather than the potential underlying crime. If their FBI interviews in Fall '03 were contradicted by others at the time, Ashcroft due to his relationship with Rove had to recuse himself. Rove probably did a better job of wriggling out of his false statements. But I don't think you can fault the jury for wondering about Rove's culpability because it was part of the defense's opening argument.

I didn't want it to come down this way but was seeing the writing on the wall last week. Remember Scooter is a lawyer and he knew exactly the risks he was running from the beginning. The jury looked at the evidence presented to them, and decided against him. From what I've seen posted by commenters here today the outrage is based in tribal identity. I haven't seen a well put together dispassionate argument about the conduct of the trial that would seem to have any chance on appeal but IANAL. Walton seems to have gone to great lengths to favor the defense, at least up until the defense said Scooter wouldn't testify. But hey, weirder things have happened. Keep your fingers crossed.

Lesson learned by me: Never lie to a federal investigator, always err to the cautionary "I do not recall" response if not completely sure of my memory. (I did serve on a federal jury in my past and the gov't's ability to pull a witnesses life apart scared the bejesus out of me. Scooter should have known.)

Terrye

judicious:

Oh yeah. We should face facts. Such as:

Why is it when Bill Clinton actually admitted to perjury were we hearing people on the left rave about a right wing conspiracy?

That is a fact. During the Clinton administration I saw people indicted, put in jail, impeached, and it was not their fault. No sireee.

And even now the sad remnants of said administration such Sandy Berger are still out there in DC plying their trade, hiding things in their pants and yet golly gee it is not their fault.

Joe Wilson, good buddy to the mansion dwelling Al Gore who in turn was good buddies to slam dunk Tenet can just lie his ass off in front of God and country and not only is he not condemned, he is a frigging hero...and here you are telling the rest of us to face facts.

I think that it is possible that Libby might well have said he should not have said to that grand jury, whether he lied or was just confused I don't know...but I do know that this whole damn thing was a waste of freaking time from the get go. A politically motivated waste.

And now after the put upon Wilsons got their pictures on the front of Vanity Fair and all that there will be a movie. So shy, so concerned about keeping a low profile. Gag me.

Gee, do you think Nicole Kidman will play Valerie?

And they say crime doesn't pay.

Christopher Fotos

Re juror Denis Collins, like some others here I'm surprised someone who "Shared space with Russert" was allowed to serve on the jury. But as far as his being a Washington Post reporter is concerned, I just did an online search of WaPo archives, and the the last file it shows with his byline was in 1990. All 24 stories listed in that search (1987-1990) are sports coverage. That part of the archive goes back to only 1987 (which for my purposes is plenty), there's a separate sector that covers 1887-1987, and the first couple of pages heading further back into time starting with 1986 show more sports coverage. Fwiw.

Then again, if your search for stories today, it's currently listing nothing, which I doubt since at least some wire report (they carry Reuters and AP) should have mentioned him by now.

hit and run

Other Tom, with Fitzmas nearly over, time for Boxing Day!

Barney Frank

What was the context of Denis Collins remark about 'where were Rove and Cheney'?

Did he mean 'why weren't they on trial instead of Libby' or 'I would like to have heard their testimony relating to what Libby said and knew'?

I'm perfectly willing to believe the first if that's what he meant, but the second is a possibility.

Pofarmer

Cool. Wow. Just heard Wilson on the radio spouting the same old drivel. He feels unasailable now, I would guess. Bush lied, blah blah blah.

All you conservatve out there lurking who "voted for change"

Happy?

roanoke

Jeebus.

O'Reilly has Ken Allard on and another guy and they are talking about how anti-military that NBC might be perceived to be by the troops.

That NYT prints leaks all kinds of info. I have always thought that a mole for someone that gives a damn about the troops should be planted at the NYT since all the disgruntled bureaucrats leak to them.

Anyways-

O'Reilly seemed to imply that FOX had huge news on NBC but that he wanted to verify it 83 different ways first.

Enlightened

Christopher - it doesn't matter when he wrote stories for the WAPO. It matters that he worked for WAPO, so he would lean towards their viewpoint ie: Rove and Cheney did it, and Joe Wilson said so.

So the fact that he referred to those guys leads me to believe this is a correct inference.

He is not impartial, yet he said so in his voir dire. I'm just sayin. Prosecutors love stealth jurors. Now we know why.

Christopher Fotos

BF, my strong impression is, Denis C. was saying they wondered why Rove and "other guys" weren't on trial. He didn't elaborate a lot, but this was just before or after he said the jurors thought this case was at a lower level than they'd expected, or words to that effect.

ctm

"What was the context of Denis Collins remark about 'where were Rove and Cheney'?"

It sounded to me that he meant 'why weren't they on trial, also.'

Terrye

I don't Cheney will resign, why should he? the press is just milking this, no wonder no one watches the news anymore.

Joe Gloor

I don't know. Eight hours of grand jury testimony, when the witness knows that he didn't commit 'the crime' because there was no crime. Why would he bother to lie? Why would he say he couldn't remember very well - which I guess he did say at one point or another. He was trying to be helpful and Fitzy reamed him on a process charge. He had no idea that what he was testifying to would get him in trouble, because he knew he wasn't guilty of the underlying 'crime'.

Lesson I learned. Take the fifth. Stonewall. Three most useful words when testifying: "I can't recall."

kate

Oh, they're interviewing "low level" Joe Wilson. We must remind Joe that he is low level at every opportunity.

And Val...at first I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Now, I think she's just as bad, if not worse, than Joe.

The woman loves publicity and money.

Pofarmer

Did he mean 'why weren't they on trial instead of Libby'

That's exactly what he meant. But they convicted Libby anyway, just to make a point, i suppose. That's sure how Matthews and Wilson and most of the MSM are taking it.

lurker

Other Tom, your predictions could be correct unless Wilson continues to be interviewed and propagandize his story, in spite of the truth.

Sara, thanks for the correction. Glad to read that a US president can appoint anyone (hopefully, without the votes from Congress).

Thanks, MayBee. Those hearings are a waste of time.

Profarmer, I did not stay at home last November and voted.

roanoke

Christopher

I guess you miseed my post upthread about that.

The only archive I didn't go through was the Miami one.....

pete

It is actually a bit embarassing to watch you degenerates agitate yourselves into a fulminant neocon froth following the Libby verdict.

Dig in degenerates!

MayBee

Barney Frank- definitely not the second.

The jurors saw the big case, and were surprised they only were given the Libby perjury charges. They believed Cheney ordered Libby (and Rove?) to name Plame to reporters.

From E&P:
Denis Collins said that "a number of times" they asked themselves, "what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys....I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy."

He said they believed that Vice President Cheney did "task him to talk to reporters."

Collins said, "some jurors said at one point, 'We wish we weren't judging Libby...this sucks." More than once he said many jurors found Libby "sympathetic."

Asked about Vice President Cheney not testifying, he said, "Having Cheney testifying would have been interesting." And when the defense opened the trial by suggesting that Libby was scapegoated by the White House, "I thought we might get to see President Bush here." But Collins said Libby not testifying was not such a big deal since they'd listen to nine hours of tapes of his earlier testimony.

Christopher Fotos

Christopher - it doesn't matter when he wrote stories for the WAPO. It matters that he worked for WAPO, so he would lean towards their viewpoint ie: Rove and Cheney did it, and Joe Wilson said so.

It doesn't matter that he last wrote for the Post 16 or 17 years ago? Listen, I'm pro-Libby and anti-(this) jury, but I'd never argue that someone should be excluded from a jury because he wrote for the Post almost two decades ago. You might as well exclude, I don't know, say museum curators.

Pofarmer

Lesson I learned. Take the fifth. Stonewall. Three most useful words when testifying: "I can't recall."

Exactly.

Anybody that thinks this prosecution and this conviction will lead to people being more truthful to the FBI are sadly mistaken.

roanoke

correction;

FOX has huge news about NBC

Pofarmer

Other Tom, your predictions could be correct unless Wilson continues to be interviewed and propagandize his story, in spite of the truth.

That's exactly what's gonna happen. It has already started tonight. It's gonna be real bumpy. I'm not sure there's any way to rebut these guys at this point.

lurker

It is actually a bit embarassing to watch you degenerates agitate yourselves into a fulminant neocon froth following the Libby verdict.

Dig in degenerates!

Actually, we're seeing far more nutroot frothing following the Libby verdict as they redirect their attacks against the White House.

Take a look at Joe Wilson...he's frothing so bad. Oh! What a degenerate he is!

PaulL

Russert: "I take no joy in this."

Yeah, right, perjurer who lies against an innocent man accused of perjury.

Christopher Fotos

Hey roanoke, I guess I did. But I provided the dates--value added, baby.

Enlightened

Oh please. Jason Leopold bleats his clarion call to the nutters that Cheney is going to resingn, like in 24 hours.

And the idiot brigades jump on the Jason train enmasse. Still waiting on those 22 indictments. Still waiting on sealed vs sealed. Still waiting on the Rove and Cheney indictments.

Cheney is laughing at their asses - he would rather die in office than jump the nutter shark.

It's a pleasure to watch them squawking like seagulls fighting for a piece of garbage. It just smells bad, that's all. The smell will waft away on the indictment breeze.


arrowhead

"Scooter should have known."
Looking for a way out

He certainly should have. And the President shouldn't have tied his hands.

MayBee

Where is Tops?

lurker

Other Tom, your predictions could be correct unless Wilson continues to be interviewed and propagandize his story, in spite of the truth.

That's exactly what's gonna happen. It has already started tonight. It's gonna be real bumpy. I'm not sure there's any way to rebut these guys at this point.

Nah, I can't think of any way to rebut these guys other than more boycotting of those news stations?

Write petitions to those news stations? Nah, won't work.

Enlightened

Pete - Your head is up your ass again. The constant inversion process must be hell on the brain cell clinging to your sigmoid.

roanoke

Christopher

value added, baby.


LOL!

Listen I got stuff about his first date p-osted on this thread....

Beat that. ;-)

Pofarmer

Nah, I can't think of any way to rebut these guys other than more boycotting of those news stations?

I don't even have a TV hooked up in my house. I'm doin my part.

Syl

Enlightened et al

Christopher - it doesn't matter when he wrote stories for the WAPO. It matters that he worked for WAPO, so he would lean towards their viewpoint ie: Rove and Cheney did it, and Joe Wilson said so.

I don't think we should go there. In fact I think there is no there there for Mr. Collins over anybody else on the jury.

Not useful and thus sounds like blame-mongering.

That's my take, anyway.

Sue

Maybee,

I've been wondering the same thing.

roanoke

And!

It involved-

Belly Bombers

roanoke

Syl

Ya I think we've spun down from that.

topsecretk9

Where is Tops?

----

Right here, just got in. Have been traveling.

Now that the "legal process" has taken course, I encourage you to pester the CIA to answer the question they couldn't in Novemeber 2005 after Joe outed his wife:

Last week before the dam began to break on the subject of the CIA war on the Bush administration, I contacted the CIA public information officer who fields media questions regarding Joe Wilson. I asked him why the Agency hadn't required Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding his trip to Niger.

He hesitated for a few seconds, then responded: "I don't know."

At his suggestion, I followed up with my questions by e-mail:

(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?

(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?
(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?
(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?
The CIA officer responded:

Given the ongoing legal process, I don't have anything for you in response to your questions about Ambassador Wilson.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012183.php

https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/pas.html

Barney Frank

Thanks everyone for your perspective on what Collins meant and said.
Sounds like the jury may have been the one scapegoating Libby.
I've made it plain I always thought there was a good chance Libby was lying but I'm not sure he would have escaped this jury if he had taken the fifth, if they were trying Cheney and Rove in abstentia as their comments seem to indicate.

roanoke

Syl

Have some empathy though.

I think if a army officer was testifying against you.

You wouldn't want one on the jury.

Christopher Fotos

Former Colleagues at 'Wash Post' Discuss (Now Famous) Libby Juror by Joe Strup/E&P:

Denis Collins, the juror in the Libby/CIA leak case who delivered a lengthy post-verdict commentary for the press, spent about a decade at The Washington Post, where he covered both metro news and sports, and spent time on the copy desk, according to editors at the paper.

The longtime journalist, who has also written for The Miami Herald and the San Jose Mercury New, is recalled as smart,
hardworking and energetic, although not always "coloring within the lines."

The jury convicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief aide to Vice President Cheney, on four of five counts today, including perjury and obstruction of justice. Collins, whose identity was not known until today, came out of the courthouse and spoke to the press, saying that as a former reporter he felt this was the right thing to do.

Cable TV news commentators noted the irony of a former reporter becoming chief jury spokesman -- at least today -- in a trial where reporters played such a central role. Some also wondered how someone who had written a book on spying (including the CIA variety) had made it on this jury.

In the jury selection phase, before Collins name came out, he was identified as having worked with Bob Woodward at the Post and being a neighbor of NBC's Tim Russert. Both would later testify in the case....

A couple of "coloring outside the lines" comments and "sometimes hard to reel in" whatever that means because Strup doesn't tell us.

Syl

Pofarmer

"Did he mean 'why weren't they on trial instead of Libby'"

That's exactly what he meant. But they convicted Libby anyway, just to make a point, i suppose. That's sure how Matthews and Wilson and most of the MSM are taking it.

Isn't that called 'jury nullification'? Usually it exonerates the defendant for reasons outside the evidence introduced in the trial. (Which is why there are no legal options addressed specifically to this kind of situation...it's supposedly a benefit from jury of peers).

In this case, if there was indeed jury nullification, it went the other way. Nothing to do about it. Remember, there was no motion for change of venue.

widespread panic

goddamn but you 29 percenters just have to be the world's biggest gd losers that i ever had the misfortune of sharing the planet with.

jeebus h but you people are STILL defending the chimp and shooter and the entire bunch of evil fascist spawn that this administration was from Day One ??

why don't you all go enlist and head over to Iraq and get blowed up and save us the trouble ??

good gawd but you people are self delusionists to the nth degree.

pathetic bunch of inbred losers.

what part of GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY don't you understand ???

roanoke

Syl-

I'm going to ask you-

If an army officer was testifying against you-would you want one sitting on the jury?

davandbar

My understanding is that Libby could be sentenced to a maximum of 25 years. I'm sure this is only a fantasy of mine, but couldn't the judge look at this conviction and sentence him to something minimal such as a hefty fine and some house arrest? He has to know that this is so minute and especially since Fitz announced today that the investigation is over.

Syl

pete

It is actually a bit embarassing to watch you degenerates agitate yourselves into a fulminant neocon froth following the Libby verdict.

Oh this is rich coming from someone who believes the Libby trial means something it does not.

And Wilson is out there as if the verdict proves he didn't lie. LOL What a maroon.

And I'm being kind.

MikeS

When President Bush ordered Scooter Libby to “cooperate” with investigators, Libby took it to heart. He over-confessed to leaking to reporters. He tried to answer investigators questions when he clearly knew that it was in his best interests, indeed it is a D.C. tradition, to say he couldn’t remember.

Did the Presidential order to cooperate violate Libby’s rights?

capitano

From Denis Collins book (see if you can spot anything familiar):

*****

Spy Catchers

She’d had a great career with the CIA – case officer and field operative, and the first woman to run an intelligence station in Africa. But as she faced mandatory retirement in 1991, Jeanne Vertefeuille couldn’t bear to think she might have let a traitor get away.

We’d had a sudden and unexplained loss of assets [agents] in 1985. We called them the Crown Jewels and we lost them all. Arrested, put on trial and with few exceptions executed. I was convinced we had a mole.

Vertefeuille persuaded her boss to let her spend her final eighteen months at the agency reexamining the six-year-old evidence. At the same time, another female CIA officer with twenty plus years, Sandy Grimes, was on the verge of retiring when of her superiors asked if she’d like to join Vertefeuille in resurrecting the mole hunt. She said she’d even do it for free.

This fortuitous partnership, along with the work of two FBI special agents, led to the arrest in 1994 of Aldrich Ames, the most damaging mole in CIA history. Ames began spying for the USSR in 1985 while in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations – Soviet and Easter European Division. He was promised more than $2million for betraying a number of Soviet intelligence officers who were secretly cooperating with the CIA, at least ten of whom were executed. In addition, he compromised 100 or so other covert operators in the Soviet Union and East Europe. The story of his capture illustrates how much of intelligence work depends on individual initiative.

Ames was no stranger to either woman. In fact, Sandy Grimes had carpooled with him in the early 1970’s. “You’d have loved him,” she told an audience at the International Spy Museum, where she and Vertefeuille lectured on the Ames case in spring 2004. “Back then he was an absent-minded professor, always running out of his house late with his shirt out, saying, “Sorry, sorry, sorry.”

pp. 131-132.

Sara (Squiggler)

I asked this in another thread and Jane gave me a good answer, but still not complete. Can someone tell us what type of filings to expect from the defense prior to Libby's sentencing?

One, I assume, is a motion to overturn the convictions. But what else. What about those Rule 29s or whatever they were?

hit and run

what part of GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY don't you understand ???


Oh, it's worse than that!!!!!

GUILTY GUILTY not guilty GUILTY GUILTY

MayBee

Denis Collin's hair made him a natural for this case.

Syl

roanake

If an army officer was testifying against you-would you want one sitting on the jury?

If I felt he would look at the facts in a fair and impartial manner, why not?

There is only so much one can do regarding jury selection.

Sara (Squiggler)

davandbar -- Libby is facing 25 years and a one million dollar fine.

Enlightened

I'm just saying - I think this juror, the newest Saviour of the Left, has some explaining to do if he did indeed lie about his very obvious connections to persons in this case to get on this jury.

The fact he and the rest of the jurors convicted a man based on alleged facts against ROVE and CHENEY is appalling.

And widespreadpanic - you and Pete need some Prep H? I see the inflammation and itch has spread to your - uh, um. Nevermind - there is no there - there.

kate

Under sentencing guidelines, Libby actually faces 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Way too much time for this triffling nonsense.

Joe and Val have never been happier. They are loving this.

hit and run

Let's see Denis on MTP...

Sara (Squiggler)

Kate, that's the minimum on each count, isn't it?

Enlightened

Capitano - extrordinary. Valeri Plame again. Why the defense would not be concerned about someone that wrote that is beyond me.

There is now way in hell this guy tried to be impartial. He basically said he was disappointed they could not get the big guys, so we settled on the little guy. Leftwing Justice at it's finest.

Terrye

So, now that the trial is over....do we get to ask Valerie some questions? Like why did she send her husband to Niger? What did she think when she say his oped? Did she realize that it was at odds with his verbal account...in other words, Valerie did you know your husband was liar?

Just think if she had sent someone she was not sleeping with to Africa none of this would have happened.

And what is pete raving about with the 29%, isn't that about how much of the vote Lamont got?

roanoke

Syl-

OK let's up it a notch.

The army officer worked next to the guy that was testifying against you.

They worked at the same base, in the same company, in the same platoon and they sat just a couple of desks apart?

Oh ya-and that guy is a famous general now-the one testifying against you-and all the other officers worship him.

This analogy could be full of holes but I'm trying to think of a group that is believed to be conservative and that balances the view of reporters as liberal.

MayBee

So, now that the trial is over....do we get to ask Valerie some questions? Like why did she send her husband to Niger? What did she think when she say his oped? Did she realize that it was at odds with his verbal account...in other words, Valerie did you know your husband was liar?

Just think if she had sent someone she was not sleeping with to Africa none of this would have happened.

The bloggers at FDL have access to Joe and Valerie, and can ask those questions any time. They don't.

BarbaraS

Whatever became of the waiver issue that was raised during the trial. Is he not liable for any of that?

I don't believe thaere was a waiver. I understood that Fitzgerald just indicated to the NBC attorneys that he was not going into that. That is why I think he had Russert by the short hairs and got him to testify the way he did. I also think he had Ari by the short hairs and the same thing happened. We know he had Judy there and probably Cooper. This was a witch hunt instigated by Fitzgerald and Echenrode. It was carefully orchestrated by Fitzgerald but Echenrode started it.

Jane

Actually it's 30 years, obstruction carries a potential of 10 I think. Common wisdom is that he will get 3-5.

"coloring outside the lines"

What does that mean? Someone who doesn't play by the rules?

Sara, the defendant will ask for a JNOV (Judgment not on the verdict) often done orally when the verdict is announced.

The Defendant will file a motion for a new trial, citing reasons why the Judge should clean up the mess he made himself before going to appeal.

D has 30 days (I think) to file a notice of appeal - and the basis of the appeal will be whatever grounds we come up with in the next few weeks, based on errors of law, objected to on the record.

In June, Libby will be sentenced assuming the Judge does not agree to a new trial - which is very very very unlikely.

defense will file their brief, the prosecution will file it's rebuttal, and then there will be rebuttals to the rebuttals.

At some point, the case will go in front of the Appeals Court. Oral arguments will happen, and months after that a decision will be rendered.

pete

Joe and Val will have their crack at Libby in the civil case. So if you haven't embarassed yourselves enough yet you will have additional opportunity to do so again. Oh, and by all means, dig in!

From time to time I will check in to watch you jerks waste your lives while destroying them. Dig in!

davandbar

Sara (Squiggler),

Thanks for getting back to me. I guess what I am asking is - does the judge have discretion to look at this case and decide that it's not worth 25 years and $1M? Not that I'm putting any great weight in Walton, but it just seems like common sense!

Enlightened

Roanoke - Add in the fact the army officer wrote a book about a naval officer connected to a special female naval officer, and that very same special female officer is the reason you are on trial -

I'm just sayin - the Juror that has now embraced the spotlight is seemingly the ONLY juror that has this many connections to this trial.

Coincidence? Perhaps - but unlikely. I would like to hear from other jurors.

kate

Sara, my understanding is that in sentencing the charges are treated as part of one event, so the sentence is concurrent. I read the sentencing guidelines sometime back and someone here commented maybe a year ago or so on this. The guidelines are kinda dry to read.

Will Wills

Where is Rove? Where is Cheney?

What matthews and the jurors need to ask themselves is what crime could Rove and Cheney have committed. It isnt against the law to respond to an opinion-editorial, yet.

Pat

Let's give the MSM credit. They won a major victory in the conviction of Libby.

Juror Denis Collins repeats the accusations that circulated in the MSM and liberal blogs that Rove/Cheney/Bush "outed" Plame and then claims "politics played no role in the verdict". Armitage? No mention. Wilson's litany of lies? No mention. Plame's non-covert status? No mention. Of course these are inconvenient facts that the MSM found inconvenient to mention.

The MSM polluted the minds of the jurors so successfully that there was no way Libby could get a fair trial.

Even so, it is obvious his defense made some major mistakes. Painting Libby as a scapegoat did not work. Not calling Mitchell to undermine Russert was a mistake (although the judge may be the one who screwed up here). Given that the jury believed that Plame had been "outed", it was a major mistake not to make Armitage the villain who should have been in the dock.

The biggest issue is why Fitzgerald was allowed to continue investigating long after he knew Armitage was the leaker. Then Deputy Attorney General Comey deserves hanging for letting Fizgerald do a Nifong on Libby.

But, congrats to the MSM. They had it both ways; lie in print and tell the truth in their "friend-of-the-court" brief, as Andrew McCarthy explained in this NRO piece. Best of all, so far as the MSM is concerned, Libby went down.

topsecretk9

--Valerie did you know your husband was liar?--

Well yeah! And apparently she had a hand in the dishonesty by telling her husband her memo about his contacts was to answer the Veep's question before he asked it.

roanoke

Enlightened-

Imagine the uproar and the need for justice the press would have screamed bloody murder over this.

But when the watchers are reporters, the witnesses are reporters, one of the jury considers himself to be a reporter...

I think it's just a little too much especially when you add the Democrat to Republican ratio of the DC electorate to boot.

Barney Frank

--From time to time I will check in to watch you jerks waste your lives while destroying them. Dig in!--

But pete, wasn't it you who claimed you had come to save us and wake us from our revery with your shockingly cogent bon mots?

Now you want us to dig in and wait for the rising proletariat to lynch us. I'm sorely disappointed in your earlier misreprentations.

Enlightened

Pat - Precisely. Appalling. This is what Democrat stands for?

Count me out.

pete

Oh excuse me I had almost forgot. As I have said in the past the left gets angry when they are right while the right gets angry when they are wrong. So
keeping true to form my sign-off should have included: GO F YOURSELVES YOU PATHETIC ANTIAMERICAN FACIST DEGENERATES.

Toodles!

Christopher Fotos

capitano--fascinating. Here's another excerpt From Denis Collins's Spying--The Secret History of History, on p. 129 (amazon search function):

As dead drop sites go, Martha Peterson's was pleasantly scenic, though hardly covert--a heavily traveled bridge above the Moscow River within sight of Luzhhniki sports stadium. There was nothing extraordinary in a thirty-three-year-old woman pausing to enjoy the view, at least not until she casually placed a rock under the bridge railing.... and disappeared.

Peterson, an American embassy official and CIA officer had fallen into a trap set by the KGB that day in 1977. The floor beneath her feet literally opened up, and she dropped to a platform just below, where the Soviet agents were waiting. Those same agents had earlier nabbed Peterson's Soviet asset at the same spot....Peterson's capture, while dramatic, was hardly unique. Getting caught is an occupational hazard for spies--and often a fatal one. (Those cyanide capsules supplied to secret agents in Hollywood movies are not an imaginative invention. Though rarely used, they are available in case of capture.) Sometimes it's the agent's fault, a result of sloppy tradecraft or an indiscreet conversation. More often, however, agents are caught because someone, a defector or another captured agent, betrays them....

fdcol63

All I can say is ..... WOW.

capitano

(Eddie Murphy voice:)

Anti-American? Moi?

Terrye

pete:

You see the thing is your side is not capable of embarrassment so it is not an emotion you understand.

Such as four years and all they got is that Libby was not surprised and yet he said he was surprised ergo he lied.

I have to say after watching Val and Joe do their thing, I do have a better understanding as to how it was that the CIA could be so wrong about the Soviet Union and Libya's nuke program and Pakistan's nuke program and Iraq and Afghanistan and just about everything else they were involved in for the last 20 freaking years. Talk about embarrassment. How about the complete incompetence of Valerie Plame and her ilk?

If they had done their job properly think how different history might have been. But noooo, the only thing they can put any real time and energy into is playing politics and trying to cover their own asses. In the end, who does that benefit?

History will not be kind to them or to the people like you. Poor fool that you are.

maryrose

Pat:
An excellent summation and a true look at what transpired. Shocking and discouraging. I plan to stay far far away from courtrooms.

roanoke

capitano

How did you find that excerpt?

Dave in W-S

Please be a man of your word, Pete - when you say you're signing off, sign off.

'Bye.

centralcal

Gawd, I just absolutely admire David Bois (the attorney who represented Gore during the 2000 Supreme Court case)! There is a man with integrity!

Did anyone see him on H & C tonite?

Barney Frank

--As I have said in the past the left gets angry when they are right while the right gets angry when they are wrong.--

Well your theory explains the relative placidity of conservative sites.
It seems a little less helpful on why the leftwing blogoshere is flecked with the foam of hydrophobia.

BTW none of your subjects, objects or verbs agree in the above quote.

Scooter Libby Convicted Felon

Thanks for the support you kool aid drinkers.

Jane

I don't adore him (Bois) I think he is drastically over-rated. Would I like him better if I'd seen H&C?

capitano

Roanoke -

I used the same method as Christopher Fotos - Amazon search inside term: "covert" -- that was the best result.

I particularly liked the absent-minded professor characterization of Aldrich Ames. You know, likable and forgetful, but very guilty.

Enlightened

Larry/Jason/Joe/Sockpuppet - Just go to the light. Please.

Terrye

Barney:

I am not sure if English is pete's first language.

All those years in one of those special schools in the isolated mountains of Pakistan have no doubt left their mark as well.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame