Monday Post-Game Show

Let's have a Monday post-game thread, and do check the Firedog UPDATE - apparently the jurors sent out a note suggesting they are confused about whether they need to find that Libby lied in both FBI interviews or just one of them, and as the discussion evolved observers formed the possibly-mistaken impression that the jury had in fact concluded that Libby had lied on at least one of those dates.

In reverse order, the key update:

UPDATE:  We are now hearing that Walton may have been engaging in hypotheticals and there is no indication from the note that the jury has reached a finding of fact, but it's hard to know because we were listening to them argue about something we hadn't seen.  More as we know it.

MSNBC is mentioned as having a hand in this - if David Shuster, Fabulist, is involved, relax.

Here we go, with the FDL of today's action:

Morning questions (held over from Friday): FDL 1, 2, 3); Jeralyn Merritt has text of the note and response.

Jockeying over new questions asked on Monday (1, 2)

And finally, "Guilty?", with the UPDATE noted above:

It was my impression in the courtroom (and MSNBC confirms, based on courthouse sources) that there are three new separate questions, all about Count 3, the Cooper false statement charge.

At one point, I believe Walton said (and others who heard it confirm that this was their impression as well) that the jury has reached a unanimous decision regarding the fact that Libby lied.  Walton had issued some instruction, however, that they need to decide that he lied on October 14th and November 26th dates (both FBI interviews), but now says he should have used the word "or" instead of "and" — i.e., if the jury all agrees that Libby lied on either of these dates, they have reached a unanimous guilty verdict.  (The indictment itself says "and.")

Well - if this jury can't find reasonable doubt on the Cooper charges, I'm a beaten man.

PUTTING ON A HAPPY FACE:  It has been suggested that we have a very detail- and process-oriented jury.  If that is so, they may simply be pinning down details and loose ends before doing any voting - after all, it would be a shame to vote and then start arguing afterwards about what the vote meant.  So it may be that they are nowhere near unanimity that Libby lied on either date or both dates.

Let me illustrate - here is the relevant into to the contentious Count Three:

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation...

One or more literal-minded jurors may have argued that they can not remember Agent Bond's testimony to the necessary level of detail - specifically, they may wonder whether Libby discussed Cooper at both FBI interviews, or just one of them.  Taken literally, if Libby only discussed Cooper at one interview, he can't have lied about him at both interviews.  Furthermore, if the jury can't (beyond a reasonable doubt) agree on which FBI interview included the Cooper discussion, then maybe (one might argue) they can't be unanimous on when he lied.

That seems like an absurd over-analysis of the indictment by the jurors, but that may be all that is going on.

As to the other question - can they consider what was said to the grand jury in evaluating the FBI testimony - it *may* be that the point of the question is that Fitzgerald cited a specific FBI interview in the course of asking a question about Libby's interaction with Cooper, and this citation has provided the jurors a clue as to the date that Libby may have lied (or not).

In this scenario, the jury certainly can *not* consider Fitzgerald's characterization of the FBI interview as definitive - although he is an officer of the court, Fitzgerald was not under oath during Libby's grand jury testimony; Agent Bond was under oath at the trial.

Well - that is just a guess without having seen the note, but if the judge has misinterpreted the question and allows the jury to consider Fitzgerald's paraphrasing of the FBI interview as evidence, he has made a ghastly error.

That said, I would love to see a note that I wanted to spin down, rather than up - a jury note along the lines of "Was Fitzgerald involved with the Duke debacle?" would be a real mood-lifter.

A MOOD LIFTER!  Here we go, from Reason: "The Madness of Patrick Fitzgerald".  Yeah, but when I write "Fitzi's Dishonor", you will see the wrath of a righteous man.  Of course, talk is cheap, and it's been a week now...

FOR PUNTERS: Libby at Intrade.

Comments

[clarice]

I'm getting even crankier--and if Shuster was responsible for this, ...............

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Let me start with the question I asked at the end of the last thread:

If neither the jury nor the judge can define a charge, what is the remedy? If charges are so ambiguous they lead to this confusion, can they be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings?

Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | March 05, 2007 at 03:01 PM

[Patrick]

BOOZE!

[Another Bob]

Can this be brought to an end this way?

This is getting truly ridiculous.

[MayBee]

I wonder if even Fitzgerald could feel good about a conviction on the Cooper charges.

Maybe the jurors are like clarice's husband explained most people would be-- just certain there must be something more to them, because they seem ridiculous. So they are desperately seeking something

[roanoke]

This is Jeralyn's take on it-but she is only working off what is available at FDL-

Update: They are relasing the jury for the day, but arguments on the jury questions will continue.

I'm having a hard time understanding without seeing the actual questions, but from Marcy's description, it sounds like the jury wants to know if it can consider the false statement charges in deciding whether Libby lied to the grand jury. Fitz argues yes, and the judge seems to agree, because the Government's theory has been that once Libby lied to the FBI, he was locked into a version of events that he continued when he lied to the grand jury. Wells thinks the false statement was complete in October when he talked to the FBI and it's improper to allow the jury to consider those statements in deciding whether he lied to the grand jury the following March.

The Government explained its theory here.

There also seems to be an issue as to the statements in Count 5 and the jury needing to know it only must find he lied on one of the the two dates in March and unanimously agree on which date.

[MayBee]

I'm getting even crankier--and if Shuster was responsible for this,

Shuster heard that the jury has decided Libby lied, but he then destroyed the verdict sheets.

[RichatUF]

from MikeS...liberated from the other thread

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that on this side of the Looking Glass there is a court where the jury repeatedly doesn’t know what the jury instructions meant. The judge repeatedly doesn’t know what the jury questions meant. That somehow through this process [the] jury could possibly determine that they do know beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby meant to deceive investigators.

I'm still trying to figure this out...the judge doesn't understand the jury's questions and the jury can't figure out what "reasonable doubt" means-wha?

It seems to me that someone would have whispered-pulling out bullhorn-if you are asking that question we should have gone home a long time ago.

RichatUF

[Ralph L.]

Syl said: "niggling at the back of my mind"

Send that woman to rehab!

[goldwater]

Wells should ask for a mistrial immediately. Based on jurors questions, they have no earthly clue what is going on.

[goldwater]

.... and I'm not sure Walton does either.

[Other Tom]

The FDL people certainly seem to think he's toast, and that Libby himself thinks he's toast. Hard for me to conclude otherwise from anything I've seen in the past hour or so, confusing as it all is.

[RichatUF]

be something more to them, because they seem ridiculous. So they are desperately seeking something

Especially with Cooper-at least it ended with a question mark?

the way it is getting reported it seems like a member of the jury wants to convict on something from the gj tape, but shoehorn it into the Cooper charge...fitzworld

RichatUF

[PaulL]

To recap, Cooper has bad notes that nevertheless seem to support what Libby says happened. Cooper has three different versions of his magazine story.

Russert has no notes. The FBI "lost" their notes of their interview of Russert. First he said it was possible he mentioned Plame, then in court he said it was impossible.

For this, the jury is going to convict Libby of perjury? You've got to be kidding!

[roanoke]

Well FDL took the GUILTY? title down even though they thought they had Cooper punctuation mark protection...

[steve]

Actually, I can kind of see the point if the jury is confused about this:

The jury instructions say that all the jurors have to unanimously agree that the same specifc statement was false in order to convict. They can't have just majorities that think each one is a lie.

What if two Libby statements contradict each other? The jury might want to use the old "Two men say they're Jesus--one of them must be wrong" approach and conclude that Libby was lying somewhere, but they don't know which statement, if any, was truthful and which was false or misleading.

Of course, a contradiction between two of Libby's statements probably means that he was as confused as hell about all the memories, meta-memories, intentionally misleading statements to reporters, true statements to reporters, etc. Given Fitz's convolouted questioning, it would be pretty hard not to contradict yourself at some point.

[kate]

OK...what is going on. Is the jury using the weakest count to convict on another count.

Ah, please pardon quickly, Bush.

[MayBee]

Here is a comment from Althouse that has me thinking:

Fritz said...

I would have to convict on all 5 counts or none, there is no way around it. The government's case is motivation. If he lied about Russert, what difference does it make what he claims to have said to Cooper, Miller or anyone else. Fitzgerald is convinced that the OVP misused the press and thus any story that does not fit with that line is perjury.
3:15 PM

What sense would it make if Libby lied about Russert and not about Cooper...or vice versa?
No sense. For Fitzgerald's story to work, he has to have done it all, right?

[Other Tom]

I guess I take back my comment from a few minutes ago. As I now read FDL, their bold-faced update supersedes all their prior gloating over the destruction of this man's life and his family's lives.

Do you all agree? (Sorry I was so slow to grasp what they were saying.)

[PaulL]

The Madness of Patrick Fitzgerald

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118955.html

[Rick Ballard]

I agree that the truth is an unkown in the Swamp, that it always has been and that it always will be. So, sure, I agree.

[RichatUF]

a review of Count 3

COUNT THREE (False Statement) THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

Stunning if they are hung up on this...Cooper's notes and Libby's recollection were similiar...whats intrade up to?

RichatUF

[MayBee]

Yes, I agree OT.
It's weird, because it's right there in Marcy's liveblogging that Walton was working through how to get the jury to agree on the same lie IF they agreed he was lying.

I guess Jane Hamsher heard what she wanted to hear and wrote it up without checking with her co-blogger.
Another meme started by wishful observing- the Wells with his hands in his head, the jury not looking at Libby. I'm just surprised EarnestAbe and Plamehouse lover hadn't made it over here to gloat before the update got posted.

[Syl]

it sounds like the jury wants to know if it can consider the false statement charges in deciding whether Libby lied to the grand jury.

By my reading at FDL it's just the opposite. No? Can the jury consider the GJ testimony in deciding whether Libby lied to the FBI.

Count 3, Cooper, False Statements

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Is this right? The jury says we don't know how to conclude whether Libby lied when we have no quotes from Libby which would give us a basis to make a conclusion, so can we use quotes from Libby from a different time and a different venue to decide what he said in the earlier time and venue? In other words, if I tell you on Thursday that it rained on Monday, but on Monday I didn't say anything about the weather, does this mean I lied about Monday's weather on Monday?

[clarice]

I think this whole thing is a plot to drive the remaining sane people left out of their minds.

[RichatUF]

PaulL;

Russert has no notes. The FBI "lost" their notes of their interview of Russert.

Its fitztruth...an assertion of the prosecution that the defense is not allow to challenge. Kind of like guilty until proven innocent...

RichatUF

[Sue]

What happened to the 'reasonable doubt' question? Did someone go home over the weekend and look in a dictionary?

[roanoke]

Boy this exchange between Wells and Walton-

Wells; This is a very dangerous area. IF there was a completed crime, it was done and completed in October. Now what the jury is asking can they reach forward to March and use that evidence. The theories the govt is giving your honor, are so marginal. the potential is so great. The answer for this completed crime is no. If he did it, it was done.

Walton: I am having some issue if he related it back subsequently. But I don't believe what he said to FBI has no bearing. If he allegedly falsely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it, it could be used.

this is boggling...

Do we have a quantum physics expert in the house?

[Other Tom]

Some people might wonder whether Fitzgerald, getting a first-hand look at what he has wrought, might be having second thoughts about it all. Rest assured that he isn't. As one of Stalin's prosecutors said in the 1930's show trials, "I am not concerned with notions of abstract justice. I demand that these mad dogs be shot!"

[maryrose]

clarice: I am also cranky and flummoxed. I had to step away from the keyboard for a while. Now I am just angry that it has come to this...

[boris]

Suppose they are trying to convert all the charges into lying about not remembering.

Libby lied when he said in GJ that he told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him and [when he said in GJ that he] did not know if this were true.

That's why they had a problem with the Cooper charge. Dismiss all other testimony that has memory problems except Libby's.

[Patrick]

Interesting possibility is that the notes reflect the concern of one or two jurors, not the majority. If that was the case, maybe they are trying to convince the last that he/she is wrong.

Keep Hope Alive! (And Sealed vs. Sealed is a perjury charge against Rove)

[maryrose]

Do we still have some hope in the House of JOM? If not I agree with kate-pardon quickly.

[goldwater]

******BREAKING NEWS ******

Another note from the jury:

Dear Judge,

Please send 11 Rubik's Cubes for the morning.

Thanks
The Jury

[clarice]

Between the unconstitutionality of the appointment, the selective and idiotic investigation to the baffle gab indictment and cockamamie instructions,concluding in the nonsensical jury questions I feel I am in some kind of nightmare where reason is irretrievably lost.

[roanoke]

Dang it Jeralyn did a bunch of cross outs to her theory based on the update...

[PaulL]

We've seen out outrageously poor the paraphrasing of statements has been at the hands of the FBI and Fitzgerald. The jury has noticed this, too, perhaps.

But instead of finding "not guilty" on the vague charge, they want to be able to find an actual statement in quotes that they can find Libby "guilty" of uttering.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

FREE CLARICE from Fitzmare!

[RichatUF]

from roanoke...

Walton: I am having some issue if he related it back subsequently. But I don't believe what he said to FBI has no bearing. If he allegedly falsely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it, it could be used.

WOW...it has to be said twice;"allegedly falsely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it"...If I allegedly falsely make a false statement to FBI and repeat it the FBI agent begins to glow dark green and Joe Wilson appears on a red horse.

That can't be what the judge said-IANAL-but I do speak english, and it might look like english, but its not...maybe fitzenglish.

RichatUF

[PMII]

We really don't know anything, it's all speculation.

Everything is going to be okay, everything is going to be okay, everything is going to be okay...................

[kate]

Hey, this is going on so long we may lose another juror. They need to start feeding those jurors bologna sandwiches.

[clarice]

Here's Apuzzo but it adds nothing to our befuddlement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6459586,00.html

[PMII]

I can think of a lot of things I would like to feed the jurors and it's not bologna sandwiches

[MayBee]

Dear Judge,

Please send 11 Rubik's Cubes for the morning.

Thanks
The Jury

What does it mean if the jury asks for a dart board and a blindfold?

[Sue]

You would think that one sane person in the jury room would tell the others if we can't figure out that in and of itself tends to tilt towards reasonable doubt.

[Answerer]

Intrade is down below 70 on both the ask and the offered. WTF?

[roanoke]

RichatUF-

It's Fitzgibberish pushed through the Swamp Sieve.

gawd.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

This link is from Lorrie Byrd's recap of pretty much what we've seen here, but go look anyway, the graphic is really funny:

Libby: New Jury Note

[windansea]

I think this whole thing is a plot to drive the remaining sane people left out of their minds.

copy that...

[PMII]

They already have a dart board and a blindfold.............

[RichatUF]

from boris...
That's why they had a problem with the Cooper charge. Dismiss all other testimony that has memory problems except Libby's.

Interesting...fitzdoubt, forget about my witnesses with flawed memories, I demand that this mad dog be shot. Madness-

RichatUF

[PaulL]

Apuzzo's latest, that Jeralyn links to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6459586,00.html

[lurker]

Wow, the jury is really nitpicking on their deliberations.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

According to this AP story it looks much less pessimistic:

'...a brief courtroom debate between U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, prosecutors and defense lawyers _ with the jury out of the room _ indicated the questions related to a charge that Libby lied to the FBI about a telephone conversation he had with Time magazine's Matt Cooper in 2003 concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame.

'There was no way to tell from the court discussion Monday how far along the jury has come in weighing its verdicts on the five felony counts against the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.'

[Syl]

But instead of finding "not guilty" on the vague charge, they want to be able to find an actual statement in quotes that they can find Libby "guilty" of uttering.

And they are so confused by the vagueness they forget to determine if the 'lies' were intentional.

I'm literally feeling sick to my stomach.

[vnjagvet]

Herewith part of my comment from the last thread which, I submit, is still accurate:

I think it is now officially down to ridiculous quibbling among the jurors.

I am afraid the tea leaves say nothing more than that to me, although I have read (skimmed) all comments here and all of FDL's posts.

I am now consulting palm readers, crystal ball gazers, horoscopes, soothsayers, taro card readers, cassandras, and the rest of the fortune telling rackets.

I'll be back.

[M. Simon]

Re: FDL,

If you can't kill the King you can at least kick his dog.

[boris]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[lurker]

FDL predicts that the jury already found Libby guilty of count 5.

[Rick Ballard]

"Do we still have some hope in the House of JOM?"

Why wouldn't we? If there is a "facilitator" working on "consensus" and I'm a holdout, why wouldn't I play him like a fiddle? I was thinking impasse today but impasse tomorrow is OK too.

[Tom Maguire]

I have a Keep Hope Alive comment as an update - *IF* we think this is a process and detail oriented jury, they may just be trying to button down every detail before doing any voting; it would be a shame to vote and then argue over what the vote meant.

However, without access to Bond's testimony, who among them can say how Libby's FBI interviews differed on the Oct and Nov dates? I can't even take a stab at it myself, and I can't imagine why they woul dhave been materially different.

So I am not afraid of betting this is a BS, process-oriented time-waster of a question.

OK, I am off to dinner to drown my sorrows - when I return, I'll be thre other Other Tom, and we will hear from the gin and tonics.

[clarice]

I'm tying on a kamikaze headband and looking for the closest airfield. Just saying.

[Other Tom]

How come we haven't heard from Madame Cleo? Is she screwing up the courage to answer the question about the pre-Bush lying (as if such a thing ever occurred pre-Bush)?

Anyhow, I guess we're done for the day, right? Martini time?

[PeterUK]

The jury is confused,the judge is confused,numerous legal buffs and intelligent observers are confused,even the MSM and the leftwing plankton are confused,has any other prosecutor ever vomited forth such a cat's arse of a case?
Let's put the responsibility for this debacle firmly where it belongs,Patrick Fitzgerald.
Time to put it out of its misery.

[Syl]

I wonder how long 'til note goes on Pacer. BUT new clerk today? We may not see it?

[Sue]

I can't wait for Fitz to try his next case that doesn't involve a member of the Bush administration. I want to see how many Fitz!'s they give him when he uses the same tactics against a criminal that they are sympathetic with. They have already given him a pass on his staunch support of the Patriot Act. I'm sure the day will dawn when they realize he will do the same to a terrorist with regards to this Fitz! speak.

[RichatUF]

more from roanoke...

IF there was a completed crime, it was done and completed in October. Now what the jury is asking can they reach forward to March and use that evidence.

Lying to the FBI about his converation with Cooper. The jury is asking a question if they can apply Libby's gj testimony (in March04)to what he told the FBI in Oct 03-if they are asking this question they have moved well beyond reasonable doubt and to unreasonable undoubt...

RichatUF

[M. Simon]

But what if instead of:

"allegedly falsely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it, "

we have:

"allegedly truely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it,"

or:

"allegedly falsely makes a true statement to FBI and repeats it,"

My decoder ring is broken.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I'm tying on a kamikaze headband and looking for the closest airfield. Just saying.

Fox is blurbing that a man just flew his plane into his in-laws house on purpose.

[windansea]

I would call you all a bunch of lemmings but then I'd have to got to rehab

this case is good for another 2 years or so, Libby will never go to jail and a confused judge and jury do not a solid verdict make

[MayBee]

Cooper says Libby told him that Plame worked for the CIA. Libby says he confirmed that he had heard that from other reporters but did not know if it was true.

Is even Matt Apuzzo getting it wrong now?
FDL:
Had it come up, had Wilson come up on visits to CIA HQ in Langley, VA, he said he didn't recall that. I asked what he had heard about Wilson's wife.

MC Mr Libby said, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or "Yeah, I've heard something like that too." Pleasantries at the end, maybe another question or two in there.
---
J You and Mr. Dickerson knew by the time you talked to Libby that Wilson's wife worked at CIA. Your recollection is that you asked him what he had heard. He said, I'd heard that too. Do you take that as confirmation. As a fact.

MC I did take it that way
---

I don't think Cooper said Libby told him the wife worked at the CIA.

[Semanticleo]

Can you smell the coffee brewing?

[PaulL]

You know what I'm really sick of? Everything is allowable per Fitzgerald because of "state of mind." What conceivably doesn't affect one's state of mind, especially when you are a bad leaker?

[Curly Smith]

If he allegedly falsely makes a false statement to FBI and repeats it

I hate to quibble but doesn't one tell the truth if one falsely makes a false statement?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

This guy is a lawyer?????:

'...the fact remains that Judith Miller was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison...'

[MayBee]

Patrick R Sullivan- what is that from?

[Syl]

TM

*IF* we think this is a process and detail oriented jury, they may just be trying to button down every detail before doing any voting; it would be a shame to vote and then argue over what the vote meant.

Copy that.

But maybe only because I'm hungry too.

But, if that were the case how much time have they ALREADY spent on this one stupid count?

Mayhaps (as opposed to MayBee?) they are gayly skipping all over the thing looking for puzzlements they can ask about to prolong the joy of baloney sandwiches.

[roanoke]

RichatUF-

unreasonable undoubt...

LOL! gawd where can we get the-

UNFITZ.

[Sue]

they may just be trying to button down every detail before doing any voting

At this point, anything is possible. I can't believe they have been in there this long and have not taken a vote though.

[RichatUF]

Can you smell the coffee brewing?

Laugh it up Cleo, but you'll get qued up because of this too...

RichatUF

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Everyone in my household has been on a jury at least twice, some more, and no one can remember a time that a vote was not taken almost immediately and then again, if necessary, at various stages of deliberations.

If this jury has not voted yet, I would say they are very misguided and doing a piss poor job at deliberating.

[PeterUK]

"Can you smell the coffee brewing?"
Yes and it smells good.Several things will emerge from this, Libby will never serve time and there will never be another Special Prosecutor and the press will lose their protected sources.

[arcanorum]

'"Can you smell the coffee brewing?"
Yes and it smells good.Several things will emerge from this, Libby will never serve time and there will never be another Special Prosecutor and the press will lose their protected sources.'

I second these remarks.

Most important of these, the press has lost any fig leaf of a claim of privilege.

[steve]

Once again, I have to give the jury some sympathy if they are having problems even taking a vote because they don't understand exactly what Libby is charged with. Some of the language in the instructions is so convoluted, and the statements to which those instructions apply are so convoluted, that it might take a while just to agree about what the heck they're supposed to be voting on.

For one trivial example, rescued from the earlier thread, is the charge on Cooper:

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him) and (Libby did not know if this were true)))

or

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him and Libby did not know if this were true)))?

Not exactly a layup.

[M. Simon]

"Qued up" means in line.

"Keyed up" is the correct term.

[bubarooni]

it has the malodorous stench of decaf.

[maryrose]

"Not exactly a layup"
Precisely which is why this jury should be acquiting on this charge and all of the others. There is no case...just Fitz bloviating and causing global warming in the process.

[eric]

Goldwater, I agree with you that Wells should move for mistrial. There is not only a reasonable doubt problem but a basic due process breakdown from the extreme confusion.

Clarice needs to get a writ from the Circuit Court to prohibit The judge from deliberating with the jury. Walton is becoming pen pals with them.

Given the protracted and confusing nature of the proceedings very few errors could be considered harmless. How can the judge unring the bell Fitz sounded in closing rebuttal.

This case is Kafquesque, yet it more resembles the final trial in Alice of Wonderland. Fitz is the Queen of Hearts and Walton is the Little King of Hearts. Unfortunately, the jury was wearing hearts. I hope they were not trying to please the Queen.

Alice requested that justice be done. Everyone knows the the Queeen's rejoinder.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Patrick R Sullivan- what is that from?'

The Reason Online article Tom linked to.

He's right that Judy was treated outrageously, but she wasn't 'tried, convicted and sentenced to prison'.

[Syl]

I want to see the note.

The thing about the dates sounds valid and like honest confusion. It could come from anyone.

The thing about going to GJ testimony to convict on FBI false statements sounds like a holdout for conviction if it's not ALL of their confusion on what the heck to do.

I forgot the third thing.

But it does bother me that they're so in the weeds on Cooper.

However, if they had already decided Guilty on Russert and obstruction, why be so worried about and spend so much time on Cooper?

Which makes me think they have either decided nothing much at all, or they have dismissed Russert totally and thus have only Cooper left to deliberate over.

[M. Simon]

I predict based on the overwhelming DNA evidence that the jury will find OJ guilty.

[Sue]

Which makes me think they have either decided nothing much at all,

Holy Cow! How long will this go on? Surely they are close to a conviction. But like you said, if they already have Russert, why agonize over Cooper? Unless the majority wants a slam dunk...

[PeterUK]

"He's right that Judy was treated outrageously, but she wasn't 'tried, convicted and sentenced to prison'."

True,she was imprisoned by command of the Grand Inquisitor.

The jury should be given some sympathy,are not all of us asking WTF Fitzgerald is talking about?

[plamehouselover]

teeheehee

[M. Simon]

Every one knows those three kids from the upper classes did it.

It so fits the M.O.

[PeterUK]

"I want to see the note."

I don't,I was to hear Judge Walton say,"You're crazy dude,this is a crock,everybody go home!"

[M. Simon]

I was thinking about being:

plamethrower

and decided against it. The case isn't that hot. IMO.

more like a plameout

or so I'm hoping.

[roanoke]

steve-

That is a result of how weak a case Fitzgerald has presented.

I also think he brought such narrow charges forward on purpose to hamstring the defense.

[centralcal]

Clarice: "I'm tying on a kamikaze headband and looking for the closest airfield. Just saying."

Besides the jury room, I can think of Fitz's offices and plamehouse as likely targets. Looks like you'll need some associates! Searching in top drawer for kamikaze headband.